# POLL--- AMD 5000+ Black Edition vs. INTEL E2200



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

This is a Poll asking for people opinions as to which processor i should choose *AMD 5000+ Black Edition* or *INTEL E2200*

The pc i am building is for gaming, for games like crysis, far cry, starcraft 2, all the nfs's, f.e.a.r., quake 4, splinter cell's, halo 3, COD 4... etc.

I will be oc'ing but not that much about till 3-3.15ghz, i am first time oc'er... not very expierenced

post if more info is needed

thanx for reply...


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

You can find a BE retardedly cheap if you search around some forums. OC is so easy to do on em too. Good chip to practice on


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 15, 2008)

Silverel said:


> You can find a BE retardedly cheap if you search around some forums. OC is so easy to do on em too. Good chip to practice on



But also could be said for an e2200 as well. It's going to have to come down to personal preference saadz. If I was building new, e2220.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 15, 2008)

My E2200 hit 3.2ghz and im sure it would blow anything in the AMD X2 range away.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

budget is a part, but I do have an E2200 @ 3.4Ghz on air right now.

As said previously tho AM2's pricing is sometimes retardely cheap used!

I would say you need two comparable rigs in other aspects other than the CPU's and see where they both rate at say.....3.0GHz.

Make the decision then.

If you find another with a system comparable to my "hers" rig in my sig, I will post some benchies for ya to help in the decision. Mind you I have a 1024X768 monitor on that rig, so thet would need to be the resolution run for testing!


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> My E2200 hit 3.2ghz and im sure it would blow anything in the AMD X2 range away.



if it did hit 3.2 ghz and that was a lot faster how much would that effect gaming... also i need something that can be oc'ed for a 24/7 setup so i don't have to tamper with settings all the time and so it doesn't harm the processor... if intel gigbyte p35-ds3l if amd MSI K9A2 CF-F v2,


----------



## suraswami (May 15, 2008)

both systems can handle all those games well.  Final go will be based on the total price of the system.  I saw E2140 go for $5 yesterday at local Frys.  If you have the right board you will get a screamer.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

what would the fps difference be if i used and xfx 8800 gt xxx 512


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

The 5000+ BE would annihilate the E2200, the only thing the E2200 has positive apart from its price is it's a huge overclocker, but then again the 5000+ BE also overclocks well.

Either way, the games in which you play should be sufficient for any cheap dual core processor, I'd be concentrating on GPU. What is your full specification?



saadzaman126 said:


> what would the fps difference be if i used and xfx 8800 gt xxx 512



The 8800GT will play the games you listed at high settings with respectable frame rates, bare in mind the 8800GT series has been out a year and is falling into the mainstream category now Nvidia have released their 9800 series.

Edit:


saadzaman126 said:


> im probably gonna go with xfire 3850's or 3870's after the new 4xxx series comes out and they are cheap...i will be playing at either 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 and i want to be able to play on high settings



Dont waste money on cross firing a 3850 or 3870! a single 3870 X2 tends to perform slightly better than a crossfired 3870 and usually costs around the same. I'd recommend getting a cheap 9600GT or a single 3870 as they should allow full graphics at high for another year, then next year purchase another card, because in a year your average "mainstream" card would most probably perform better or equivalent to a crossfired 3870.



farlex85 said:


> Intel is faster clock for clock and allows for a better upgrade down the road. AMD is cheaper though. I feel like I've typed this before.......



Maybe generally speaking, but when comparing the AMD 5000+ BE with the E2200, its fair to say the 5000+ is the superior processor - the other processors Intel offers high end are not in question, we are talking about only the 5000+ and E2200, so why did you vote the E2200?


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

5000BE  3.2ghz is easy adn even when you OC the E2200 they will be close adn the K9A2 has the option of up to quadfire


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

im probably gonna go with xfire 3850's or 3870's after the new 4xxx series comes out and they are cheap...i will be playing at either 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200 and i want to be able to play on high settings


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Intel is faster clock for clock and allows for a better upgrade down the road. AMD is cheaper though. I feel like I've typed this before.......


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Intel is faster clock for clock and allows for a better upgrade down the road. AMD is cheaper though. I feel like I've typed this before.......



i odn't think that intel offers a better upgrade road he is getting a 790FX mobo which will allow phenoms and quad gfx...the GB DS3L is P35 which will be pretty useless when the new intel chips come out that no longer use FSB kinda sounds like the C2Ds as we know them are pretty wasted....


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

xfire the 3850's save a couple bucks. Not many games worth thinking about that _need_ more than that. Crysis and CoJ excluded. lolz


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Eh, you could put a 45nm quad in that p35 and blow the phenoms away. Nahalem won't run on it, but neither will amds next chips most likely.


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Eh, you could put a 45nm quad in that p35 and blow the phenoms away. Nahalem won't run on it, but neither will amds next chips most likely.



I'm confused, why did you vote E2200? The AMD 5000+ BE is much faster than it - Whether Intel offer better high end CPUS Q-series is irrelevant, we are talking about the E2200 and 5000+.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Well, I guess I may be wrong, I was under the impression that the e2200 ocd will be at least as fast as the 5000+ if not faster. Sorry if that is incorrect. If it can get close in speed though, the ability to upgrade to a better cpu in the future makes it the better choice to me (but I often tend to analyse future purchases perhaps overly so).


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Eh, you could put a 45nm quad in that p35 and blow the phenoms away. Nahalem won't run on it, but neither will amds next chips most likely.



says who the phenoms have no issues running on the old AM2 boards as long as there manuf got around to updating the BIOS.

K10.5 is not a huge change from K10 hence why its not K*11* it will work just fine kinda like when AMD started the X2 line that worked fine on even the oldest K8 mobos

and the E2200 can get close and probably beat the 5000BE but that will take major tweaking and thought vs the 5000BE which you st the multi to 16 and the cpu volts to 1.5v and your done


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

There was a thread here not too long ago about amd completely redoing their architecture to compete w/ nahalem. I think they are pretty much gonna have to, intel won this round, and I doubt there will be a socket AM2 that competes w/ the high end intel core 2 stuff.


----------



## InfDamarvel (May 15, 2008)

5000+ is your not going to be overclocking is a obvious choice in my opinion.

But if your overclock the E2200 is going to outperform 98% of the time ez. Hell if the E2140 would once overclocked. 5000+ at 3.2ghz would still lose to a E2200 at even 3ghz only. And these things have been know to reach 3.2 - 3.6ghz


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

I got my 5KBE to 3.4ghz without any issues. Then I pulled the computer apart to do some modding, now I'm waiting on a new PSU. Then I'll be pushing for 3.6ghz.

If you're interested in overclocking for the sake of practice, and ease, _IMO_ go with a BE. It's kinda what they're made for.


----------



## FatForester (May 15, 2008)

I'm obviously a bit biased (look at system), but e2200 all the way. I had this debate when rebuilding last winter, and decided Intel has more going for it. Yea, Nehalem is coming out, but sometime down the road you'll have to upgrade again anyways. In terms of upgrading, the Intel has the AMD beat. Phenoms aren't much to write home about, and the 45nm Intels will be even cheaper once Nehalem comes out. That's looking towards the future, but in terms of right now, it's a toss up. Once overclocked, both will give about the same performance depending on the luck of the draw. It's really just a personal preference, so you've gotta ask yourself what you'll be happier with a year (or half a year) from now.

EDIT: One day for kicks I upped my e2180 up to 3.4ghz. It was purely a vcore increase, nothing with the NB or memory, and it didn't break a sweat. Right now my desktop is in pieces so I'll have to find its true max later. Keep in mind that that's on an e2180, so you can probably push an e2200 farther.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

I think really it depends on how into this your wanting to get saad. If your wanting to oc, do benchmarks, upgrade in the future, stuff like that, get the e2200.

If, the other hand, you will mostly be playing games and not really looking to oc or upgrade too often, then the 5000+ would do just as nicely.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

I know how to oc a amd be 5000+ by just raising the multiplier but if I want to oc an intel how much harder is it…
Secondly, If anyone has a e2200 processor or 5000+ be could they run some benchmarks and tell me (along with the system specs) so I can compare them 
Thirdly If I get the MSI K9a2 cf-f v2 or k9a2 plat. Then my mobo can support phenom upgrade and how bad could phenoms be that later down the road when they become cheap I can pick one up… its still a quad core processor that can be oc’ed a bit and is still better that most if not all dual core’s


----------



## MKmods (May 15, 2008)

I vote stick with the AMD, I am really happy with mine. I went the lazy rout (x2 6400 3.2Ghz no OCing needed)
Underdogs RULE!


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Silverel has basically the same system and we are both at 3.4GHz....As I say 1024X768 max res on her rig. You name the bench Ill run it, maybe you can talk silverel into it as well!


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

Hehe... http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=59535

----wPrime 32 Score 1.55----
1. 9.59 sec- Xeon L5310 2.28Ghz- ? - DanTheBanjoman
2. 11.95 sec- Intel Xeon X3350 3.60Ghz- DDR2 450- DOM
3. 13.89 sec- Intel 2 Core Quad Q6600 3.30Ghz- DDR2 400- {JNT}Raptor
4. 18.34 sec- Intel 2 Core Quad Q6600 2.69Ghz- DDR 200- lemonadesoda
*5. 23.57 sec- AMD 5000+ X2 3.36Ghz- DDR2 420- Silverel
6. 24.76 sec - Intel Pentium E2160 3.64Ghz- DDR2 472 - crush3r
7. 25.85 sec- AMD 5000+ X2 3.34Ghz- DDR2 418- cdawall*
8. 26.25 sec- AMD 5600+ X2 3.31Ghz- DDR2 735- suraswami
9. 27.08 sec- AMD 5000+ X2 3.2Ghz- DDR2 400- CrackerJack


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

MKmods said:


> I vote stick with the AMD, I am really happy with mine. I went the lazy rout (x2 6400 3.2Ghz no OCing needed)
> Underdogs RULE!



how is it how well can u play games on it cause i am going to be ocing the b.e. 5000 around 3.2ghz


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

when she is done with her Pc I will run wPrime 32 V1.55 and we shall sse if they all work the same as you are saying! 

Also please take into concideration the difference in my chipset to crushers, I wonder if it makes any difference?


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

silverel and sneekypeet can u guys run 3dmark05 and 3dmark06 and post em... with 3.2 ghz oc'ed


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

Depends on what games you wanna play I guess. I can't imagine having any problems with this 3850 on most games, I'm just not going to be running fps into the 100's. lol. Which is fine by me, only need 40fps for optimal smoothness. More than that is kinda overkill.

I have Oblivion and Bioshock installed, neither of them give me issues at 16x12 max settings. Hell, DX10 in Bioshock isn't bad either, a little choppy with the uber-heavy action scenes, but for the most part its all pretty smooth. If you're doing crossfire, I can't forsee any issues with gaming on a BE.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

can do in a few, will have both scores for ya but to silverel...make sure to lower the resolution to 1024X768 please?


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

k thanx a lot guys and i might be xfireing the 3850's but till the second one's price drop only one for now


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

Check out the 3dmark05 and 06 threads for stuff like that 

You should be able to get a good idea of which configurations are going to score better.

HD3k Radeon 3dmark06 scores

Alcpone's 3dmark06
Alcpone's 3dmark Vantage

Most of that PC is in pieces right now. I took everything out to do some modding to my case. I'm on my backup Sempy right now waiting for a brand spanky new PSU. Should be here tomorrow though.



_case is in my sig _


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Silverel said:


> Check out the 3dmark05 and 06 threads for stuff like that
> 
> You should be able to get a good idea of which configurations are going to score better.
> 
> ...



judging by the 3850 scores in the 3K thread...the AMD's loose pretty well to the E2200 in 06. Then again nflesher @3.0 did better than any of the 5000's listed in Alcapones thread as well. 

Am I missing something or is the majority of the votes pointing to a loosing idea?


9812 - Graogrim - E2200 @ 2.8ghz3850 @ 729 Core 936 Mem 
9727 - erocker - Athlon X2 @ 3.2ghz3850 @ 715 Core 945 Mem - Vista


54, nflesher87 - Ati HD3850 @ 789/1008 - 10606 - E2200 @ 3042.5Mhz - 304.3FSB
55, dark2099 - Visionteck HD3870 @ 864/1296 - 10452 - A64 X2 5000 B.E. @ 3242.2Mhz - 270.2FSB

straight from your links silverel! Oh and BTW that card and CPU linked in the scores from nflesher is the same exact CPU and card she is running!


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

ok so how far can someone oc a e2200 for a 24/7 setup that will be good for gaming


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

I have hers on a 24/7 setup orthos stable.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 15, 2008)

if you play games with 8800gt take amd5000 cuz i use 8800gt with 6000 amd i am play crisis on very high siting


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm confused, why did you vote E2200? The AMD 5000+ BE is much faster than it - Whether Intel offer better high end CPUS Q-series is irrelevant, we are talking about the E2200 and 5000+.


No the 5000+ isn't faster. It takes about a 400-600Mhz clock advantage from AMD to match the Core2. I have both AMD and Intel in my house, and have tested this extensively. The only thing that it doesn't make much of a difference in, is modern games, because those are gpu limited anyway. But the Core2 would be faster at everything else. Add to the fact, that the latest 5000+BE's coming out of the factory don't clock near as well on average compared to the first runs, with the average example topping out between 3.1 and 3.3. and the E2200 is a no-brainer. 


As far as people mentioning the ease of ocing a BE, he only needs a board that does 273FSB to get 3GHz out of the 2200, and that's like, ummmm, *all* of them. Just open up the BIOS, set the fsb to 273, and BAM, done. Every bit as easy as clocking the BE. If he wants to get creative, he can also set his multi to 9, and the fsb to 333 for 3GHz. Still ridiculously easy on any modern Intel chipset.

Short version = E2200 is the way to go. There's absolutely no reason to go AMD unless you already have an AMD board, or you get it really cheap.

I'm with sneekypeet on this. The majority of the votes are going to the slower cpu, and I can't fathom why. The E2200 is even cheaper than it. I see no excuse for getting the BE.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Thank you Wile_E ,I thought I was in a hole in the fog there for a while....lol

Even as I showed proof to my claims as you have, I think this was a fanboy vote, no offense to AMD or its users, but I learned from loads of reading...thats why I went intel from 939 instead of AM2!


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

Wile E said:


> No the 5000+ isn't faster.



Well according to Tomshardaware, a respectable independent reviewer, the AMD 5000+ series beats out the E4300, so logically beating out the E2200 shouldn't be difficult, no?
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/winrar,402.html?p=1246,1256,1266


Secondly in post number 9, I agreed the E2200 is a good over clocker.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

That chart is at stock speeds, where the 5000+ has a 400 mhz edge on the e2200. Equally clocked, a core 2 is faster.


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> That chart is at stock speeds, where the 5000+ has a 400 mhz edge on the e2200. Equally clocked, a core 2 is faster.



Well both processors are at stock speed, so its an equal test. Its not like one is OC'd and the other one isnt

You asked for an E2200 and AMD 5000+ comparison, and you got it. Accept the results! (you seriously want me to find a review where they down clock the AMD 5000+ to the same speeds of the E2200, get out of here)



farlex85 said:


> Lol, I'm not denying the results, the argument is, if they can both be ocd to the same speeds, the core 2 will be faster. If the user is not going to oc at all, then sure, the 5000 is fine. If they can both reach equivalent speeds, then a clock for clock comparison is essiential.



Perhaps, like I said in post 9, I agree the E2200 is a beast when overclocked, unfortunately I haven't seen any benchmarks putting an overclocked E2200 and AMD 5000+ together so I can't verify which would be better based on a scientific test - However I can say with the backing on Toms hardware, at stock speeds I'm 100% sure the 5000+ is a better purchase.



farlex85 said:


> I don't need you to find the review where they do so:


Well reviews are the best form of scientific data, I would rather trust independant reviews then word of mouth, especially when I'm laying my hard earned cash on the table.



farlex85 said:


> the core 2 architecture is faster clock for clock than the x2 architecture (thats why intel is better these days....). Accept it.



I'd be worried if the Core 2 architecture wasn't better, the X2's came out years before the Core 2, yet the E6600 still has trouble beating the AMD 6400+ which is based on much older architecture, years older.

If your planning on overclocking the E2200 is a good choice and its cheap, I'd get one if I had a socket 775 board.You've seemed to have made up your mind anyways. So I'll leave it as that.



farlex85 said:


> Just check out some of the benchmark threads around here. Core 2s time and time again outdo equally clocked x2s.



The E2200 is equivalent to the 3800+ X2 expecting it to compete with an 5000+ is wrong at stock speeds. - It's obvious the Core 2 are a better architecture than the Athlon X2 and they are bound to perform better at equally clocked speeds. But I'm talking with the assumption that one will not over clock, I'm unsure if the thread starter is an overclocker as I haven't got around to reading everything.

We are going to have to discuss this another time, perhaps Saturday assuming the tread is still active, because I've got an assignment due in tomorrow


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Lol, I'm not denying the results, the argument is, if they can both be ocd to the same speeds, the core 2 will be faster. If the user is not going to oc at all, then sure, the 5000 is fine. If they can both reach equivalent speeds, then a clock for clock comparison is essiential. And no, I don't need you to find the review where they do so, b/c it has been shown time and time again that the core 2 architecture is faster clock for clock than the x2 architecture (thats why intel is better these days....). Accept it.  

Just check out some of the benchmark threads around here. Core 2s time and time again outdo equally clocked x2s, and even outdo some clocked under. That being said, there often won't be any noticable difference when just doing everyday stuff (provided that doesn't include benchies). So its a matter of use and preference really.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

You really picked apart my argument pretty deeply there to arrive at the conclusion that if he ocs, then core 2 is better, but at stock its not, which isn't anything we haven't already said. I'm not gonna argue that little stuff there, but good luck w/ the assignment, I'm sure either way the op will be happy.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 15, 2008)

well, reguardless of which processor is faster, I'd still go the intel route. Why? Future upgrading, plain and simple. Say he gets the intel set-up, and acouple months down the road, he finds he has acouple hundred dollars he can upgrade with, BAM, he has a cd2 e8400. AMD does not have any processor than can hang with the 8400, let alone a 8500, even with the phenoms. I have never seen a AMD system bench even remotely close to the 20,000 mark in 3dmark06.

I'm willing to put my 8400 system against ANY amd system for benchmarking comparisons.


----------



## {JNT}Raptor (May 15, 2008)

Anyone saying the 5000+ BE Is the better choice Is just simply wrong.

People should stop saying "At stock speeds".....he has no Intention of running at stock speeds so stop using It to sell the AMD side.
He already stated he's Intending on Overclocking.......With either CPU at 3.1 or 3.2 the E2200 IS the better choice as clock for clock It'll beat the 5000+ BE.

Plus at 3.2 the e2200 will power your Video card better than a 5000+ BE at 3.2.....easily.

I'm no Fanboy...I've had nothing but AMD since I started using PC's.....but got tired of their lackluster upgrade path compared to the Intel offerings.

If your Upgrading......get the most power you can afford......and If your overclocking..... thats anything On the Intel side right now.


Hope It helps.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

how far can a intel e2200 be oc'ed cause i know that be 5000+ can only go to 3.4 ghz and i don't want to push it that far... for a 24/7 setup i want it to be rock stable


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> silverel and sneekypeet can u guys run 3dmark05 and 3dmark06 and post em... with 3.2 ghz oc'ed



You have to remember, and told you this before. 3DMark06 scores are not everything. Also, max Ive seen and heard e2200's go is 3.6Ghz.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> how far can a intel e2200 be oc'ed cause i know that be 5000+ can only go to 3.4 ghz and i don't want to push it that far... for a 24/7 setup i want it to be rock stable



Look in my sig....24/7 stable clocks, just got done with a 5 hour run at Guild Wars on it!


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

hey i have scores in all of those test check my hwbot

and everythign can clock higher in my system but i am having PSU issues right now....and its killing my scores


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

ILL have mx-2 paste with arctic cooler 7 pro so ill prob go to 3.2 for amd and 3.4 for intel...


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> I'm willing to put my 8400 system against ANY amd system for benchmarking comparisons.




*Phenom 9850 BE*





































*E8500 overclocked / Phenom overclocked*






Full review http://www.legitreviews.com/article/682/1/


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

but 400X9.5 isnt 4.4GHz where some of the 8400's like to run!!!!

Sorry darren but you are almost comparing apples to oranges!


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> but 400X9.5 isnt 4.4GHz where some of the 8400's like to run!!!!
> 
> Sorry darren but you are almost comparing apples to oranges!



Well you said ANY Phenom to an 8400. You didn't mention overclocked (well BarbaricSoul)


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

This whole thread has been based and very overlooked on overclocking, you seem to be under the impression of stock runs. The OP plainly states that his intentions are to highly OC either chip, so why would his 8400 comparo be any different?

Not trying to pick a fight, Im just trying to kill the misinformation that the OP now needs to sort through to realize the E2200 is better, reguardless with his intentions!


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> This whole thread has been based and very overlooked on overclocking, you seem to be under the impression of stock runs. The OP plainly states that his intentions are to highly OC either chip, so why would his 8400 comparo be any different?


Yes when we were talking about comparing the E2200 and the 5000+ BE overclocking was discussed because apparently the thread starter wanted to overclock, but then you made a statement talking about Phenoms even though we were not even on a Phenom topic and made a bold statement which I'm challenging with link evidence.

Well not you personally, BarbaricSoul


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Darren said:


> Yes when we were talking about comparing the E2200 and the 5000+ BE overclocking was discussed because apparently the thread starter wanted to overclock, but then you made a statement talking about Phenoms even though we were not even on a Phenom topic and made a bold statement which I'm challenging with link evidence.
> 
> Well not you personally, BarbaricSoul



Agreed , but a simple trip to his system specs show that "his rig" is running at 4.2GHz also. I would assume that is what hes running to bench and compare with!


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

with e2200 on 3.4 ghz and amd on 3.2 with a 8800 gt 512 what would the average fps difference be? (approx)


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> Agreed , but a simple trip to his system specs show that "his rig" is running at 4.2GHz also. I would assume that is what hes running to bench and compare with!



Well 24-7 BarbaricSoul runs 3.0ghz, which according to the review gets beat out by the Phenom 

If ones benchmark clocked @ 4275 Mhz was stable anyone with sanity would indeed run it at those clocks 24-7 and not 3 Ghz. An unstable overclock isn't worth jack.

Also he didn't specify rigs, he said a E8400 and I would kind enough to produce a E8500 which still got beat out. No excuses.


----


saadzaman126 said:


> with e2200 on 3.4 ghz and amd on 3.2 with a 8800 gt 512 what would the average fps difference be? (approx)



The difference wouldn't be noticeable, there would most likely be a 1-7 frame per second difference depending on the game. Most games are GPU dependent and the 8800 GTS is more than enough for todays gaming (maybe not for tomorrows games but we will worry about that then )


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Im not picking on you, but your views seem sorta narrow and you seem to be looking to pick out the loop holes instead of accepting what is intended and inferred. I say we all just drop it and let  saadza figure out what he wants to do, we can take this up in another thread, or in PM's if you wish!


----------



## Darren (May 15, 2008)

I'm willing to discuss it over PM or in another thread, but not today because I'm suppose to be doing my assignment, it's due in tomorrow. I only responded to this thread again because of the ridiculous comment intended on belittling Phenom users as inferior and praising Intel users.

saadza, sorry for highjacking your thread 



sneekypeet said:


> I dont think it was the users being compared...more like the archetecture at max speeds!



Guess we will never find out what he meant, he hasn't responded - ok back to work!


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm willing to discuss it over PM or in another thread, but not today because I'm suppose to be doing my assignment, it's due in tomorrow. I only responded to this thread again because of the ridiculous comment intended on belittling Phenom users as inferior and praising Intel users.
> 
> saadza, sorry for highjacking your thread



I dont think it was the users being compared...more like the archetecture at max speeds!


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> I dont think it was the users being compared...more like the archetecture at max speeds!



sorry bout misssing out on a lot i was at school failing a test... anyways

i don't get what u mean by users being compared... architecture and max speeds...

also as i said i want to do very easy overclocks so i don't want to have to tamper with a lot of settings voltage etc. with amd its only mutliplier, and intel only fsb... 

in addition if everyone is saying that with gaming there is hardly a noticeable difference then... it doesn't really matter which i pick does it cause both are easy to oc and both can be at a stable 3.2ghz for 24/7 setup without having to tamper with many settings... and since gaming is all i care about... then... can't i go with either... also if most people agree that intel is faster if the are both at 3.2 ghz and gaming is same and easiness to oc is same then y r so many people going amd... can i hear what they have to say... and please can we not go off topic and start comparing phenoms against quad core intel and e8500's


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> in addition if everyone is saying that with gaming there is hardly a noticeable difference then... it doesn't really matter which i pick does it cause both are easy to oc and both can be at a stable 3.2ghz for 24/7 setup without having to tamper with many settings... and since gaming is all i care about... then... can't i go with either...



Exactly, thats what I've been saying. Either one will likely be just fine for your uses. If you decide to start to get into serious benchmarking, and decide you want a really serious cpu, then you may wish you had gone w/ intel. But if your just gaming, focus on the gpu, and get whichever option (intel v.s. amd) works out cheaper for you.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

for normal everyday computing leaving that  on stock settings would be amazing for me...


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

Darren said:


> Well according to Tomshardaware, a respectable independent reviewer, the AMD 5000+ series beats out the E4300, so logically beating out the E2200 shouldn't be difficult, no?
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/winrar,402.html?p=1246,1256,1266
> 
> 
> Secondly in post number 9, I agreed the E2200 is a good over clocker.



Ummm the E2200 is a 2.2GHz cpu, the E4300 is 1.8GHz. The E2200 is faster than the 5000+

EDIT: And Tom's Hardware is crap anymore. Not a very good source for reviews.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Honestly, you won't really have to even worry about oc usually for games. I honestly don't really notice much difference if any between my cpu ocd and at stock. Things do move a little quicker w/ a minor oc, but its nothing to scream about.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> sorry bout misssing out on a lot i was at school failing a test... anyways
> 
> i don't get what u mean by users being compared... architecture and max speeds...
> 
> ...



heres  the thing if all your doing is gaming then the 5000BE is a better choice because you can easily pick up 3850/3870s to xfire which will make more improvement in games than the e2200 will be also if you want to future proof i have to point AMD has a lot better record of not fucking the end user anyone remember s423? or how old chipsets wont work with new chips simply because intel locked the chip to not work on it?


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

Darren said:


> Well both processors are at stock speed, so its an equal test. Its not like one is OC'd and the other one isnt
> 
> You asked for an E2200 and AMD 5000+ comparison, and you got it. Accept the results! (you seriously want me to find a review where they down clock the AMD 5000+ to the same speeds of the E2200, get out of here)
> 
> ...


Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!! The E2200 is not, in any way, shape or form, equal to an X2 3800+.

As for your 6400+ vs E6600 argument, the 6400+ has a 800MHz clock advantage, yet barely edges out an E6600. The 5000+ BE has a 400MHz clock speed advantage on the E2200, you do the math. The E2200 is as fast as or faster than the 5000+ BE at stock speeds. Try using a different source than Tom's Hardware, and you'll see the results are a bit different.

And to put the final nail in this argument, the OP already stated he was interested in OCing.

IN NO WAY, is the 5000+ BE a better buy than the E2200. Platform longevity isn't an argument either. You should always buy what's best for you now. Even if yuo did buy an AMD board that let you upgrade later, the AMD chips will still be slower, and by the time you go to upgrade, you'll likely want to get a new board anyway.


----------



## calvary1980 (May 15, 2008)

I would take the E2160 (overclock better than the 2180 and 2200) over the 5000+ BE. I have seen them go as high as 3.7Ghz.

- Christine


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

bah to hell with go for a phenom X3 8650


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!! The E2200 is not, in any way, shape or form, equal to an X2 3800+.
> 
> As for your 6400+ vs E6600 argument, the 6400+ has a 800MHz clock advantage, yet barely edges out an E6600. The 5000+ BE has a 400MHz clock speed advantage on the E2200, you do the math. The E2200 is as fast as or faster than the 5000+ BE at stock speeds. Try using a different source than Tom's Hardware, and you'll see the results are a bit different.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I didn't feel like going through it all.


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> bah to hell with go for a phenom X3 8650



lol. They want way too much money for what you get with those. They really dropped the ball on pricing.


----------



## calvary1980 (May 15, 2008)

Wile E said:


> lol. They want way too much money for what you get with those. They really dropped the ball on pricing.



+372

- Christine


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

Wile E said:


> lol. They want way too much money for what you get with those. They really dropped the ball on pricing.



but they really move @ 3.3ghz  and with a K9A2 he should be able to get that without issues unless he gets a crap chip


----------



## philbrown23 (May 15, 2008)

intel is the king of overclocking right now, and everyone knows it. if you want it for gaming and performance, then intel is the way to go, if you end up getting amd you will regret it in the end.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

philbrown23 said:


> intel is the king of overclocking right now, and everyone knows it. if you want it for gaming and performance, then intel is the way to go, if you end up getting amd you will regret it in the end.



i keep saying this who the fuck cares if he gets 400mhz hell 1ghz more out of the damn E2200 having the ability to drop in another HD38X0 at any point when he feels he needs more ummf is going to make a hell of alot more of a difference than that intel setup will because as soon as bloomfield shows up anything with a FSB is fucked no more god damn chips nothing your done.

want proof look at intels track record! there support for mobos designed 3 moths ago is worse than AMDs for 1-2yr old tech


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

ok before somebody goes and attacks the other person at their home... let me say something sooner or later im going to have to upgrade and there is no argueing that the later edition quad core intel and e8500 and intel extreme are much better that the phenom... phenom is still good but not for the money im laying down for it... so lets say i went with something newer so there is that big of a jump any more....

before i continue it doesn't matter anymore for me drawing straws is good enough

what about the e7200, e4600, 6000+, tri core 8450, tri core 8650, 6400... one of those still considering gaming and a bit of VERY SIMPLE overclocking no raising voltages!!

edit: is that true what cdawall say? that if i go intel with gigabyte p35 ds3L then upgrading will be messed cause the new stuff like extreme and quad core and whatever else is out there won't go with that mobo


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

I dunno man... out of 50 people so far...

AMD 5000+ Black Edition   	   	30  	60.00%
INTEL E2200 		20 	40.00%

They might be the King of overclocking, but it doesn't make them a better company in the eyes of scorned consumers. lol. Besides, AMD is still second overall, and it can't be all that bad, eh? There's more factors here at play than just pure performance. 

If _everyone_ agreed that Intel+nVidia were teh , than AMD/ATI wouldn't even be around. So why are they?

Answer that question for me.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i keep saying this who the fuck cares if he gets 400mhz hell 1ghz more out of the damn E2200 having the ability to drop in another HD38X0 at any point when he feels he needs more ummf is going to make a hell of alot more of a difference than that intel setup will because as soon as bloomfield shows up anything with a FSB is fucked no more god damn chips nothing your done.
> 
> want proof look at intels track record! there support for mobos designed 3 moths ago is worse than AMDs for 1-2yr old tech



I do kind of agree w/ that. I'm still thinking amd will require a new chipset for their best upcoming chips, but they offer crossfire and sli for much cheaper prices than intel does, which is a good reason to pick them for gaming.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

8650 cause current intel setups will eb obsolete with the introduction of the onboard mem controller from intel cause no current mobo will work with them


----------



## calvary1980 (May 15, 2008)

you shouldn't purchase a product based on a poll. I don't think many people here have been scorned by intel and there really isn't any other factors than performance (gaming) other than needs if you were building a HTPC it would be different.

- Christine


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Silverel said:


> I dunno man... out of 50 people so far...
> 
> AMD 5000+ Black Edition   	   	30  	60.00%
> INTEL E2200 		20 	40.00%
> ...



Because they seem to trade round for round, new chip for new chip. AMD and ATI were kings just a few years ago (at least performance wise), and they may be kings again. Intel and Nvidia are bigger companies, and everybody loves to hate a big company.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> you shouldn't purchase a product based on a poll. I don't think many people here have been scorned by intel. and there really isn't any other factors than performance.
> 
> - Christine



actually i know at least one factor its called upgrade ability now were will your LGA775 mobo with a FSB be 3 months from now when intel is no longer selling chips for it?


----------



## calvary1980 (May 15, 2008)

in my box, waiting for Nephalem  baiting me like that on a winless arguement about the change of technology isn't very honorable. either Jump in and Swim or Don't.

- Christine


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

The upgrade ability argument is bullshit. 99% of us end up replacing our boards with a major upgrade. Minor upgrades don't count because the 775 core2s will still be available for at least months after Nehalem.

As far as the crossfire argument, just buy a goddamned Intel Crossfire board.

I'll say it again. There is no reason to buy the AMD setup for gaming, when the Intel setup is in his price range.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> in my box, waiting for Nephalem  baiting me like that on a winless arguement about the change of technology isn't very honorable. either Jump in and Swim or Don't.
> 
> - Christine



haha me bait you never 



Wile E said:


> The upgrade ability argument is bullshit. 99% of us end up replacing our boards with a major upgrade. Minor upgrades don't count because the 775 core2s will still be available for at least months after Nehalem.
> 
> As far as the crossfire argument, just buy a goddamned Intel Crossfire board.
> 
> I'll say it again. There is no reason to buy the AMD setup for gaming, when the Intel setup is in his price range.



find me a quadfire LGA775 board in the same price range as the K9A2


----------



## calvary1980 (May 15, 2008)

somebody didn't take there ear medicine this morning 

- Christine


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

Well, why is AMD still favored?


----------



## spearman914 (May 15, 2008)

5000+ can overclock to 3 GHz+ with a really crappy motherboard. So 5000+ FTW


----------



## spearman914 (May 15, 2008)

Silverel said:


> Well, why is AMD still favored?



I think you ment why is the 5000+ favored? We're not talking AMD and Intel as a whole.....


----------



## erocker (May 15, 2008)

The E2200 plus a good OC'ing inexpensive P35 board would be my pick, based soley upon superior performance.


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> 5000+ can overclock to 3 GHz+ with a really crappy motherboard. So 5000+ FTW



So can the E2200. I already addressed that. It only takes 287fsb to hit 3GHz with the E2200. All modern Intel boards do that, without exception.


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

Lets get real here guys...

E2200 vs BE 5000...... Come on, you fan boys screamin AMD AMD.... LOL

Seriously lets look at this...
http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.d...579_1&id=1148_1&id=1471_1&id=1149_1&id=1550_1

E2200 all day long, plus you will run cooler.


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> haha me bait you never
> 
> 
> 
> find me a quadfire LGA775 board in the same price range as the K9A2



Don't need a quadfire board. And quadfire is useless on AMD. It just bottlenecks and shows no improvement over 3gpus. A standard Intel Crossfire board can do Tri or Quad fire with X2 video cards.

Again, no legitimate reason to buy the AMD, other than fanboyism.


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> I think you ment why is the 5000+ favored? We're not talking AMD and Intel as a whole.....



Whichever. So far I've heard something about Fanboyism. That's cool.

Why?


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

I cant believe how many people refuse to read the facts and are cofusing the piss out of this guy. He asked simply which processor is better and the intel has it point blank, clock for clock amd looses.

Why is it so hard to just help someone without all this fanboy bullcrap?

Unless there is factual info you can post showing clock for clock and AMD is faster then intel, keep you comments to yourself.

Also for upgradeability, what about all the way up to a Q6700 still slaughtering AMD's Quad lineup.
So I dont get what the arguement is...real world and even in all the tests done at TPU the E2200 is the winner here, the only real issue is the price difference, and I say its too close to warrant the AMD at all!


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Don't need a quadfire board. And quadfire is useless on AMD. It just bottlenecks and shows no improvement over 3gpus. A standard Intel Crossfire board can do Tri or Quad fire with X2 video cards.
> 
> Again, no legitimate reason to buy the AMD, other than fanboyism.



I may be wrong, but can't you get a dual x16 amd platform cheaper than intel. As far as I know the x38/x48 is all that accomplishes that on intel, and you can't find one for less than $200 (new at least), while you can find a x16 crossfire amd board for under $150.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

k how up the intel scale does the gigabyte p35-ds3l support any quad-cores or maybe the e8500


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> k how up the intel scale does the gigabyte p35-ds3l support any quad-cores or maybe the e8500



The ds3l will support pretty much any core 2 chip there is or will be (bios update may be required, and I believe it doesn't do qx9770, or any 1600fsb chip (thats the only one right now)). 8500 most definately, as well as the 45nm quads.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I may be wrong, but can't you get a dual x16 amd platform cheaper than intel. As far as I know the x38/x48 is all that accomplishes that on intel, and you can't find one for less than $200 (new at least), while you can find a x16 crossfire amd board for under $150.



BTW do you ppl make this up as you go along the OP never mentioned crossfire, the fanboys did as a way to warrant the money on AMD instead of intel.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> BTW do you ppl make this up as you go along the OP never mentioned crossfire, the fanboys did as a way to warrant the money on AMD instead of intel.



True, I suppose I got sucked in and am arguing a moot point.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> True, I suppose I got sucked in and am arguing a moot point.



didnt mean to pick on you specifically as you just followed where this ended up, its just that no one has the info that says AMD clock for clock is better than Intel, because the info doesnt exist.....Intel E2200 is the better CPU. Get over the fact that all your precious 5000+BE's are getting OWND by a Celeron!


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> BTW do you ppl make this up as you go along the OP never mentioned crossfire, the fanboys did as a way to warrant the money on AMD instead of intel.



actually me and him have been pm'ing for over a week and xfire has been brought up which is why i brought it up in fact i think i suggested the K9A2 to begin with


----------



## FatForester (May 15, 2008)

Is this still going on?! Comparing the e2200 and 5000+ by themselves there's no real winner. But when you build a system you've got to take bottlenecks and upgrading into account, in which case it's a no brainer to go with Intel. I could go on, but Wile E, sneekypeet and others have already had to repeat themselves. 

For all you guys wanting to support the underdog, that's cool, but don't do it at the sake of giving out bad advice. I loved my AMD system three years ago, but if they can't make anything truly competitive within Intel's price range then it's not our problem to deal with it.



saadzaman126 said:


> k how up the intel scale does the gigabyte p35-ds3l support any quad-cores or maybe the e8500



Any processor on the AM2 line or LGA775 line can be run in either system you're looking at.


----------



## FatForester (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> True, I suppose I got sucked in and am arguing a moot point.



Yea, I just had to take the plunge as well. Couldn't help it!


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

crossfire is an option but for now only one 3850, lter when the price drops when the new ati series come out im planning on getting another one... but the thing is that if ps5-ds3l can run all core2duos and some quad cores and one intel extreme i think then there is still huge upgrade room from a e2200 to an intel extreme (don't know which)


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> crossfire is an option but for now only one 3850, lter when the price drops when the new ati series come out im planning on getting another one... but the thing is that if ps5-ds3l can run all core2duos and some quad cores and one intel extreme i think then there is still huge upgrade room from a e2200 to an intel extreme (don't know which)



You won't need an extreme unless your going for benching records. The ONLY chip that the board does not support is the most expensive one you could possibly buy, not exactly a good investment for gaming. Any other Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad (extreme or no) will run on that mb.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> actually me and him have been pm'ing for over a week and xfire has been brought up which is why i brought it up in fact i think i suggested the K9A2 to begin with



Again the only real reason to go Crossfire at all is based on a huge monitor, which I doubt he uses, or the fact to catch and AMD up with the Intel scores.

I Hd3870 is plenty for any gaming rig, can be said the same for an 8800GT. This guy says he isnt going to clock the balls off of anything , so E-penis looses as why to crossfire as well. 

Lastly if he is on a budget, why would he want crossfire anyways.

I dont get how a budget system even warrants the use of Crossfire as either CPU would bottleneck the piss out of 2 cards. Hell if he has money to spend on a second card, spend it outright on a better CPU and higher MHz DDR2(money better spent anyways)!


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

5. 23.57 sec- AMD 5000+ X2 3.36Ghz- DDR2 420- Silverel
6. 24.76 sec - Intel Pentium E2160 3.64Ghz- DDR2 472 - crush3r

From the first page even. Now we can continue. heheh...

My question was more along the lines of why are AMD users supporting AMD at all? All the argument from the Intel supporters is that clock for clock, and $ for $, Intel is teh secks. Fanboyism has to come from somewhere. So what is it?


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

yea that is huge amount of upgrade room right now im not going to go pick out w.e intel newest line of cpu chip is going to be... i just wanna go play COD4


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

Silverel said:


> 5. 23.57 sec- AMD 5000+ X2 3.36Ghz- DDR2 420- Silverel
> 6. 24.76 sec - Intel Pentium E2160 3.64Ghz- DDR2 472 - crush3r
> 
> From the first page even. Now we can continue. heheh...
> ...



thats one test and its highly RAM speed and timing based....try another app....1 out of 100 doesnt cut it for me!

Also flat out the 5000+ costs more than the E2200 at the egg , so $ to $ the intel it still the way to go, what was your point again?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103211

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116063


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> yea that is huge amount of upgrade room right now im not going to go pick out w.e intel newest line of cpu chip is going to be... i just wanna go play COD4



It is, which is why I was saying before the potential to move to a 45nm quad is leaps and bounds better than moving to a phenom.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

what all of you seem to continue to miss is as he has said several times this will be his first time to OC and as he said he didn't want to have to play with a ton of settings you know what it takes to get 3.2ghz out of a 5000BE changing his multi to 16x and the cpu volts to 1.5v done over with it will run like that until the PSU explodes

to get the E2200 up to 3.2ghz+ vcore, then check your ram to make sure it can handle the higher bus speed change mem volts or timings if need be. etc


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

Silverel said:


> 5. 23.57 sec- AMD 5000+ X2 3.36Ghz- DDR2 420- Silverel
> 6. 24.76 sec - Intel Pentium E2160 3.64Ghz- DDR2 472 - crush3r
> 
> From the first page even. Now we can continue. heheh...
> ...



At stock clock the AMD is a superior chip, when overclocked AMD doesn't hold a candle.
AMD had their hay day, now its Intel's turn, it will switch again I'm certain.


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> what all of you seem to continue to miss is as he has said several times this will be his first time to OC and as he said he didn't want to have to play with a ton of settings you know what it takes to get 3.2ghz out of a 5000BE changing his multi to 16x and the cpu volts to 1.5v done over with it will run like that until the PSU explodes
> 
> to get the E2200 up to 3.2ghz+ vcore, then check your ram to make sure it can handle the higher bus speed change mem volts or timings if need be. etc



Gigabyte boards are extremely easy to oc. I haven't used the ds3l, but if its anything like mine (which I would imagine it would be), he can leave all voltages, timings, everything like that on auto if he wants. Change fsb, done. Np. It doesn't get any easier than that.


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> thats one test and its highly RAM speed and timing based....try another app....1 out of 100 doesnt cut it for me!
> 
> Also flat out the 5000+ costs more than the E2200 at the egg , so $ to $ the intel it still the way to go, what was your point again?



Ah... my ram and timings were worse...

Besides, 1 test AMD won while clocked lower, 10% lower even. Just saying, stuff like that is out there. You should download it and post in the wPrime32 thread, see what happens. I'll get my rig back together tonite for some testings.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> what all of you seem to continue to miss is as he has said several times this will be his first time to OC and as he said he didn't want to have to play with a ton of settings you know what it takes to get 3.2ghz out of a 5000BE changing his multi to 16x and the cpu volts to 1.5v done over with it will run like that until the PSU explodes
> 
> to get the E2200 up to 3.2ghz+ vcore, then check your ram to make sure it can handle the higher bus speed change mem volts or timings if need be. etc



ummm dividers?


BTW as stated before I used to run AMD and I had a very top of the line 939 rig, when Conroe came to surface it was the AMD killer. Nothing made from the AM2 lineup can hold anything to the potential of intel at the moment . This may change next week or next year , who cares really. Point ends with you all are to hard headed to admit the E2200 is the stronger candidate here!


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> what all of you seem to continue to miss is as he has said several times this will be his first time to OC and as he said he didn't want to have to play with a ton of settings you know what it takes to get 3.2ghz out of a 5000BE changing his multi to 16x and the cpu volts to 1.5v done over with it will run like that until the PSU explodes
> 
> to get the E2200 up to 3.2ghz+ vcore, then check your ram to make sure it can handle the higher bus speed change mem volts or timings if need be. etc



It's not that many settings, its a voltage setting, DDR2-800 at 1:1 and some fsb... Pretty straight forward clock..... And it obviously leaves you open to a $150 chip later that will SMOKE phenom quads...


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

dividers?


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> dividers?



Ram timing divider.... My ram with my 400fsb is running at 800mhz, which is right where its advertised to run, its 2 clicks....

Messing around is hard custom timings with ram, northbridge voltage, ram voltages, chip voltage, and other settings. You wont run into those problems until you cross 400+ FSB with a decent mainboard.

To give an idea I can go 450fsb on my board with my chip with no changes in anything but fsb and ram divider. *Granted my chip isn't perfectly stable and needs a bump in voltage but thats all*

So a e2200 @ 3.2 needs nothing but 3 changes, FSB, ram divider and voltage.


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

niko084 said:


> It's not that many settings, its a voltage setting, DDR2-800 at 1:1 and some fsb... Pretty straight forward clock..... And it obviously leaves you open to a $150 chip later that will SMOKE phenom quads...



umm no not smoke oc a Q6600 and a 9750 and you will get 3.2ghz+ out of the 9750 (95w) just fine and depending on the week of you Q6600 3.2-3.8ghz so no i wouldn't say smoke anywere in there


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

niko084 said:


> So a e2200 @ 3.2 needs nothing but 3 changes, FSB, ram divider and voltage.



Yup. And those last two can be done automatically if you wish w/ the d3sl I'm pretty sure.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

*OK... WHAT ABOUT.... WHAT IS THE BEST PROCESSOR FOR AROUND $150... IS IT E7200, TRI CORE 8450, 8650, E6500, AMD 6000+, 6400+ (BLACK EDITION MAYBE?)*


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 15, 2008)

Darren said:


> Well you said ANY Phenom to an 8400. You didn't mention overclocked (well BarbaricSoul)



I said MY 8400 system, check my specs, I'm OC'ed to 4.2 and have a 3dmark06 benchmark score of 19870.


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> umm no not smoke oc a Q6600 and a 9750 and you will get 3.2ghz+ out of the 9750 (95w) just fine and depending on the week of you Q6600 3.2-3.8ghz so no i wouldn't say smoke anywere in there



Umm you need to re-examine mhz and what it means to performance.... Intel e6750s clocked are smoking Phenom quads that are clocked. Let alone Q6600s or e8400s.....

Intel owns the game by a long shot when you considering clocking. AMD brought the prices down to match performance at stock clocks, which was a smart move, but they didn't get any faster.


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I may be wrong, but can't you get a dual x16 amd platform cheaper than intel. As far as I know the x38/x48 is all that accomplishes that on intel, and you can't find one for less than $200 (new at least), while you can find a x16 crossfire amd board for under $150.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136045 less than $200.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

anyone got an answer for my question...


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> *OK... WHAT ABOUT.... WHAT IS THE BEST PROCESSOR FOR AROUND $150... IS IT E7200, TRI CORE 8450, 8650, E6500, AMD 6000+, 6400+ (BLACK EDITION MAYBE?)*



Man you keep switchin it up. Sometimes I think you like to see us argue.....

Anyway maybe the e7200. You can buy my e6750 for $150, and you won't find a faster proc for that price.


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> *OK... WHAT ABOUT.... WHAT IS THE BEST PROCESSOR FOR AROUND $150... IS IT E7200, TRI CORE 8450, 8650, E6500, AMD 6000+, 6400+ (BLACK EDITION MAYBE?)*



E7200 by FAR.

Take a look at why AMD is gettin it handed to them...
http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.d...1458_1&id=977_1&id=1616_1&id=1619_1&id=1000_1

You can't argue the results, the difference is HUGE... The Phenom Quads only come ahead in a few tests where the extra cores can REALLY help, toss a Q6600 in there and they are smoked too..


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

in games anything over 3.3ghz wont matter it will be bottlenecked by the VGA cards so go for the tri-cores that can do 3.3ghz just fine


----------



## farlex85 (May 15, 2008)

Wile E said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136045 less than $200.



 haha you got me. I knew there might be a deal or something. Still cheaper w/ amd though, but I don't know if any of us know what the op is doing so.......


----------



## Silverel (May 15, 2008)

For 150? I'd be looking at an X3 then. I think Intel would be a E6300.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Man you keep switchin it up. Sometimes I think you like to see us argue.....
> 
> Anyway maybe the e7200. You can buy my e6750 for $150, and you won't find a faster proc for that price.



no its not that its just that the previous arguement isn't going anywhere i am learning a lot but i know neither side is just gonna give up and be like "yea ur right we suck" so whats the point of this argueing... except for the learning stuff but also there facts are starting to be redundant


----------



## FatForester (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> *OK... WHAT ABOUT.... WHAT IS THE BEST PROCESSOR FOR AROUND $150... IS IT E7200, TRI CORE 8450, 8650, E6500, AMD 6000+, 6400+ (BLACK EDITION MAYBE?)*



 who cares about saadzaman? Let's ignore him and keep arguing for the sake of arguing! 

They're all good processors, it's just that Intel has the upper-hand. I would personally spend 30 bucks more and shoot for an e8400 though.


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> no its not that its just that the previous arguement isn't going anywhere i am learning a lot but i know neither side is just gonna give up and be like "yea ur right we suck" so whats the point of this argueing... except for the learning stuff but also there facts are starting to be redundant



Fact is minus a few AMD fanboys, everyone knows and is willing to admit that when you clock Intel takes the lead, in a very obvious way.

I personally have 2 AMD x2 machines, they are great true, fine and yes the AMD smoked the Intel P4's, and even the Intel Fanboys are willing to admit that at least... Sorry its done, Intel leads the way currently.


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

FatForester said:


> who cares about saadzaman? Let's ignore him and keep arguing for the sake of arguing!
> 
> They're all good processors, it's just that Intel has the upper-hand. I would personally spend 30 bucks more and shoot for an e8400 though.



I would do that also personally.....


----------



## cdawall (May 15, 2008)

niko084 said:


> E7200 by FAR.
> 
> Take a look at why AMD is gettin it handed to them...
> http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.d...1458_1&id=977_1&id=1616_1&id=1619_1&id=1000_1
> ...




hold on im waiving the BS flag on that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





really a e7200 on extreme cooling @ 4.2ghz you tihnk it might beat tri core?


----------



## Wile E (May 15, 2008)

For $150, the E7200, hands down. No if, ands or buts about it. Once you overclcok, there isn't a single AMD chip that can keep up in that price range, PERIOD.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 15, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> haha you got me. I knew there might be a deal or something. Still cheaper w/ amd though, but I don't know if any of us know what the op is doing so.......



I dont think the OP knows what he is doing at this point either....hes getting alot of info off of messengers, and this correct info from the intel side is I think confusing the shit out of him.


Hey saadz buy whatever makes your heart pump purple peanutbutter bro, we will help ya clock the balls off it anyways!


----------



## niko084 (May 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> hold on im waiving the BS flag on that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why don't you click the link and find out it will SMOKE a AMD Quad, in anything that doesn't take full advantage of those 2 extra cores...

Lets back up and re-learn that almost nothing uses Quads yet either when it comes to games, or Tri's.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

oh my...


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> I dont think the OP knows what he is doing at this point either....hes getting alot of info off of messengers, and this correct info from the intel side is I think confusing the shit out of him.
> 
> 
> Hey saadz by whatever makes your heart pump purple peanutbutter bro, we will help ya clock the balls off it anyways!



Deffinetely help ya either way. 

Heh I'm not gonna lie when I first saw this I thought the AMD would take the cake over a E2200 myself, but figured I would look into it a bit before saying anything.... Didn't take long to find out.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> hold on im waiving the BS flag on that
> 
> 
> 
> ...



4.2-4.3GHz on air for E7200.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4986-view-Core-2-Duo-e7200-overclocking.html

Slays the tri-cores.

You need to let go cd. Intel is the better buy for a scratch built system right now for OCers. AMD can't keep up with OCing.


----------



## cdawall (May 16, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Why don't you click the link and find out it will SMOKE a AMD Quad, in anything that doesn't take full advantage of those 2 extra cores...
> 
> Lets back up and re-learn that almost nothing uses Quads yet either when it comes to games, or Tri's.



4.2ghz 3.2ghz

see that its the difference between the quad and the dual


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

haha aight guys thanx...


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> 4.2ghz 3.2ghz
> 
> see that its the difference between the quad and the dual



Exactly, so when overclocked which one wins? By a landslide might I add...
Like I have been saying, if you are clocking Intel all the way unless you get a sick deal on a AMD.


----------



## cdawall (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> 4.2-4.3GHz on air for E7200.
> 
> http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4986-view-Core-2-Duo-e7200-overclocking.html
> 
> ...



no way thats stable


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> 4.2ghz 3.2ghz
> 
> see that its the difference between the quad and the dual



It doesn't matter that it takes 4.2GHz to beat the AMD. The fact is that it beats it. And 4.2 is air cooled on the Intel, so it's not a hard clock either.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> no way thats stable



How do you know? How many Wolfdale owners in here get higher clocks than that, perfectly stable? How about most of them.

CD, I'm sorry buddy, but you lose. You haven't brought one credible argument to the table.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (May 16, 2008)

I vote 5000+ BE i have one for sale.. PM me for details. I get 3gz on 1.35v (1.32v stock) 100% stable.
BTW i am selling my BE to go Inte C2D..


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> no way thats stable



Doesn't matter...

Here is your beloved Tri core vs Core2Duo-
http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.d...386_1&id=1579_1&id=1627_1&id=1619_1&id=1626_1

The pwnage again.... Man you don't need to defend what you own so hard, nobody is bashing AMD, they just are not the top dog right now.


----------



## cdawall (May 16, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Exactly, so when overclocked which one wins? By a landslide might I add...
> Like I have been saying, if you are clocking Intel all the way unless you get a sick deal on a AMD.



none of the comparos in hwbot were real world PCmark and superpi? intel always wins those why not compare a banana and an orange by which has a thicker peel by looking form the outside you cant tell thats how i take those kinds of benchies run cinebench on the 3.2ghz tri and 4.2ghz dual or play a game see what runs it better


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> 4.2ghz 3.2ghz
> 
> see that its the difference between the quad and the dual



Gigahertz doesn't depend it BEATS other CPU's or not. It depends on how you run it and interference with the other components. Just like a Pentium III 333 MHz can sometimes overkill a QX9775 6 GHz.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> none of the comparos in hwbot were real world PCmark and superpi? intel always wins those why not compare a banana and an orange by which has a thicker peel by looking form the outside you cant tell thats how i take those kinds of benchies run cinebench on the 3.2ghz tri and 4.2ghz dual or play a game see what runs it better



The Intel


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> none of the comparos in hwbot were real world PCmark and superpi? intel always wins those why not compare a banana and an orange by which has a thicker peel by looking form the outside you cant tell thats how i take those kinds of benchies run cinebench on the 3.2ghz tri and 4.2ghz dual or play a game see what runs it better



Then knock yourself out and take a look at those benches also, the AMD gets slapped around, its common knowledge here.... On top of everything saying it, I build 10-15 systems a week, and sell another 10-15, varing from Intel to AMD, from single cores to dual quad servers, I know very well first hand.


----------



## cdawall (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> The Intel



BS 3x3.3ghz will beat 2x4.2ghz easily in multithreading

edit:
WE ARE RUNNING GAMES NOT BENCHMARKS! 3x3.3ghz will beat 2x4.2ghz in multithreading


----------



## farlex85 (May 16, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Gigahertz doesn't depend it BEATS other CPU's or not. It depends on how you run it and interference with the other components. Just like a Pentium III 333 MHz can sometimes overkill a QX9775 6 GHz.



What??? Did you just say a P III can beat a qx9775 in certain situations.....


----------



## farlex85 (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> BS 3x3.3ghz will beat 2x4.2ghz easily in multithreading



And encoding is really the only place that would be advantageous right now. Games and such, 2x4.2 will win every time......


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

people say e7200 cause it can be oc'ed to like 4 ghz but that is gonna take a lot of work and tampering an voltage raising that i don't know how to do... i wanted something for a 24/7 setup for maybe like .05-1v raise maybe if that willl harm the cpu but even then i don't reall want that, i know that without raising it i think it can reach like 3.2 ghz and without raising voltage tri core can too so wouldn't the tri core be higher if they are set at the same 3.3 ghz


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> BS 3x3.3ghz will beat 2x4.2ghz easily in multithreading



Well go ahead and pick one up, we both have hd3850's, we can run a stock clock cards and see who comes out on top......

Once again, near nothing uses anything over 2 cores, so the extra core means jack.
You will argue any point to the limit that your keyboard breaks....
And without any hard evidence of your point.


----------



## farlex85 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> people say e7200 cause it can be oc'ed to like 4 ghz but that is gonna take a lot of work and tampering an voltage raising that i don't know how to do... i wanted something for a 24/7 setup for maybe like .05-1v raise maybe if that willl harm the cpu but even then i don't reall want that, i know that without raising it i think it can reach like 3.2 ghz and without raising voltage tri core can too so wouldn't the tri core be higher if they are set at the same 3.3 ghz



Like I've already said, gigabyte allows for very simple oc w/ p35, you won't need to do much at all. You may not need to mess w/ the voltages period, until you want to for tweaks sake. Just change the fsb and thats it.


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> people say e7200 cause it can be oc'ed to like 4 ghz but that is gonna take a lot of work and tampering an voltage raising that i don't know how to do... i wanted something for a 24/7 setup for maybe like .05-1v raise maybe if that willl harm the cpu but even then i don't reall want that, i know that without raising it i think it can reach like 3.2 ghz and without raising voltage tri core can too so wouldn't the tri core be higher if they are set at the same 3.3 ghz



A cheap heatsink and fan, with 1 volt will get you nearing 4ghz on an e7200, and perfeclty safe temps.

It's not a complicated overclock, you don't even need that to beat a tri core up... A simple 3.2-3.4-3.6 will do it just fine.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> BS 3x3.3ghz will beat 2x4.2ghz easily in multithreading



Ummmm, the OP is worried about gaming. The 4.2GHz Intel is better in 99.9999999999% of all games. I think SupCom might be the only exception, and even then, it's not a noticable difference.

And show me a test pitting a 3.3GHz AMD tri vs an E7200 at 4.2GHz in multi threaded tests. If one doesn't exist, all you are doing is speculating. 

That 3.3GHz AMD tri-core would be roughly equivalent to 3 Intel cores at 2.9GHz. If you like, I can disable a core, down clock to 2.9 and run some tests.


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> What??? Did you just say a P III can beat a qx9775 in certain situations.....



I'm just exaggerating so I can prove it to cdawall. Well not really proof.... And BTW a P III has only 1 situation where it can beat a QX9775. The answer is slowness.....


----------



## cdawall (May 16, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> I'm just exaggerating so I can prove it to cdawall. Well not really proof.... And BTW a P III has only 1 situation where it can beat a QX9775. The answer is slowness.....



i was arguing the clock didnt matter?


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

Anyways, you guys have my opinion, Wile E really knows his stuff too, the new Intels are a easy to clock, I don't have any hassle on my e6750 until I start getting above 4ghz, which is more of a ram speed problem because it only has an 8x mutli and my ram is only 800...

If you want the bang for your buck in a clocked system get the Intel everytime, like I said before unless you get a SWEET deal on the AMD. If you are running stock clock, $ per $ take your pick of what one you like more...


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

niko084 said:


> A cheap heatsink and fan, with 1 volt will get you nearing 4ghz on an e7200, and perfeclty safe temps.
> 
> It's not a complicated overclock, you don't even need that to beat a tri core up... A simple 3.2-3.4-3.6 will do it just fine.



ill have arctic cooling prob with mx-2 paste but the thing is that i heard about auto-voltage with ds3l how if u have to raise the voltage the board does it for u and screw u up... also if i only raise the voltage 1v and raise the fsb how many ghz do u think i could get..


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> ill have arctic cooling prob with mx-2 paste but the thing is that i heard about auto-voltage with ds3l how if u have to raise the voltage the board does it for u and screw u up... also if i only raise the voltage 1v and raise the fsb how many ghz do u think i could get..



Depends strictly on your chip. Even if it's the same model as somebody else, your results will vary. All you have to do is post in these forums for help, and we'll get you OCed no sweat. It's much easier than you think.


EDIT: Oh, and for the same price as the Artic Cooling coolers, get one of the Xigmatech HDT coolers instead. Much better performers.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

im talking about the e7200


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> ill have arctic cooling prob with mx-2 paste but the thing is that i heard about auto-voltage with ds3l how if u have to raise the voltage the board does it for u and screw u up... also if i only raise the voltage 1v and raise the fsb how many ghz do u think i could get..



The first question is confusing. If it is on auto voltage then how can you manually up voltage???? If its manually configured then when set back to auto voltage, the board chooses the voltage thats right for your board but vdroop can cause instability. If you raise 1V and fsb I think you can get to 3.6 GHz. But it really depends on the batch you got...


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> ill have arctic cooling prob with mx-2 paste but the thing is that i heard about auto-voltage with ds3l how if u have to raise the voltage the board does it for u and screw u up... also if i only raise the voltage 1v and raise the fsb how many ghz do u think i could get..



Can't ever say for certain, mainly because chips and boards can vary in what they are capable of...

Never start with 1 volt either, get the chip and the board, plug it in, set your ram 1:1 timings, its really simple, turn up the FSB 25 points or and boot, run orthos to make sure your stable, rinse wash and repeat. When you hit your first fail, you will need some voltage, start at .5 increase or so and see what happens, keep going, check your temps make sure your stable, with that kinda cooler you should be good to go for awhile if you have decent airflow.

It's all guess and check but you should have zero problems pushing 3800+ just guessing, considering I have not used that chip yet, but lots of people are crackin 4 with them easily so. DDR2-800 with 400fsb you get 3.8ghz, that would be really simple on any decent p35 board. Get DDR2-1066 and your really sure to be easy with the ram, could get ya 4+ probably without too much trouble at all.

And no if you manually set the voltage it turns off the auto voltage.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> im talking about the e7200



Made an edit to my above post. Check it out.

As far as clocking, no 2 chips are created equal, even if they are the same model. Your E7200 will clock differently than any one elses. It's down to the individual chips, not just the model number.


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Depends strictly on your chip. Even if it's the same model as somebody else, your results will vary. All you have to do is post in these forums for help, and we'll get you OCed no sweat. It's much easier than you think.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and for the same price as the Artic Cooling coolers, get one of the Xigmatech HDT coolers instead. Much better performers.



Hmm I'll have to look into that cooler myself, I really want to see if I can near 4.6+ on air


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Depends strictly on your chip. Even if it's the same model as somebody else, your results will vary. All you have to do is post in these forums for help, and we'll get you OCed no sweat. It's much easier than you think.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and for the same price as the Artic Cooling coolers, get one of the Xigmatech HDT coolers instead. Much better performers.



I agree as well on the HDT if it will fit in the case and on the mobo, had to customize mine to fit over the NB heatsink.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> The first question is confusing. If it is on auto voltage then how can you manually up voltage???? If its manually configured then when set back to auto voltage, the board chooses the voltage thats right for your board but vdroop can cause instability. If you raise 1V and fsb I think you can get to 3.6 GHz. But it really depends on the batch you got...



no im talking about the gigabyte ds3l it has auto-voltage i heard so wouldn't that screw me over if i tried to up the voltage...


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> no im talking about the gigabyte ds3l it has auto-voltage i heard so wouldn't that screw me over if i tried to up the voltage...



No it would turn off when you manually set it.


----------



## farlex85 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> no im talking about the gigabyte ds3l it has auto-voltage i heard so wouldn't that screw me over if i tried to up the voltage...



You either set the voltages to auto (in which case you cannot change the voltages) or manual (in which case everything starts at stock and you select how much to up it). They are separate ways of tweaking.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> no im talking about the gigabyte ds3l it has auto-voltage i heard so wouldn't that screw me over if i tried to up the voltage...



Most modern board have auto voltage. It's good to use for mild overclocks, but as you learn more about OCing, it's better to manually tune it, eventually.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Can't ever say for certain, mainly because chips and boards can vary in what they are capable of...
> 
> Never start with 1 volt either, get the chip and the board, plug it in, set your ram 1:1 timings, its really simple, turn up the FSB 25 points or and boot, run orthos to make sure your stable, rinse wash and repeat. When you hit your first fail, you will need some voltage, start at .5 increase or so and see what happens, keep going, check your temps make sure your stable, with that kinda cooler you should be good to go for awhile if you have decent airflow.
> 
> ...



it does r u sure wit the gigabyte pe5 ds3l or what about blood iron...


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> it does r u sure wit the gigabyte pe5 ds3l or what about blood iron...



Blood iron?? Even better. It might require a lot of voltage but the blood iron has some sort of way to run it cooler. Dunno how. Possibly more heatpipes.


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> it does r u sure wit the gigabyte pe5 ds3l or what about blood iron...



Either board are good solid boards... Most boards have an auto voltage setting, and you always automatically turn off when you manually set your voltage. The DFI may even be a bit better for ya honestly, I'm not too sure about how hard the v-droop is to get around, somebody else maybe able to help ya there.


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> it does r u sure wit the gigabyte pe5 ds3l or what about blood iron...



That's all boards. If you manually adjust the voltage, it shuts off auto voltage. 

You're worrying too much about this. You have tpu to help if you run into any snags. lol.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

no Vdroop on the 3 Blood Irons Ive had in my rigs....cant say the averages would play the same for the gigabyte.

Yes auto volting can be switched easily at any time!


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Either board are good solid boards... Most boards have an auto voltage setting, and you always automatically turn off when you manually set your voltage. The DFI may even be a bit better for ya honestly, I'm not too sure about how hard the v-droop is to get around, somebody else maybe able to help ya there.



Vdroop on DS3L is .9V so ex: 1.5V will run at 1.41V. On blood irons, the vdroop is wierd. The higher the voltage on BI the more the vdroop will drop.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

i hear the blood iron is like impossible for a first time oc'er


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> i hear the blood iron is like impossible for a first time oc'er



Nah, it's not as bad as their LanParty boards. But either way, I'd go with the Gigabyte, personally. It is a little more noob friendly.


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Vdroop on DS3L is .9V so ex: 1.5V will run at 1.41V. On blood irons, the vdroop is wierd. The higher the voltage on BI the more the vdroop will drop.



There is the info we needed... Well that looks simple enough, my P5k-e does the same thing, didn't slow me down too much.


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> i hear the blood iron is like impossible for a first time oc'er



No... Read some guides, they will tell you the IMPORTANT settings. The complicated settings that talk about printers, mouse , keyboard, speakers etc, don't need to worry about.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

haha yea i don;t think there will be a big difference in the oc's


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

the blood Irons I have had have NO droop and they are really easy to OC.!

Spearman...stop posting on something you havent owned plese?


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That's all boards. If you manually adjust the voltage, it shuts off auto voltage.
> 
> You're worrying too much about this. You have tpu to help if you run into any snags. lol.



Exactly, you hit any walls, we will tell ya exactly what to do next, quite a large number of us have fairly extensive overclocking expierience.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

whats v droop and is it on every mobo


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> whats v droop and is it on every mobo



vdroop is a term we use when a boards actual output voltage differs from the actual setting in the bios. Not really a big deal unless you are pushing the absolute limits of overclocking in which case you know how to get around it anyways.

Not something you have to worry about.


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> whats v droop and is it on every mobo



Vdroop is something that lowers the voltage when in load and idle times of the cpu. The lower the vdroop the better cuz this won't give off extra heat and make other components overheat. Usually a nice well done pencil mod can solve this problem.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Vdroop on DS3L is .9V so ex: 1.5V will run at 1.41V. On blood irons, the vdroop is wierd. The higher the voltage on BI the more the vdroop will drop.



So when i set 1.65V for benching on my water cooled Blood iron and it read 1.60V load under orthos stress thats a wierd Vdroop issue?

With all 3 of mine the voltages are true all the way up the scale?????


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

k i c


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> whats v droop and is it on every mobo



Vdroop is what happens when you cpu gets loaded. The voltage to it actually drops (or "droops") a little. SO, say you have it set for 1.4V in the bios, and when you are sitting there idle in Windows, it has 1.4V going to. But, if you load it to 100%, the voltage actually drops to say 1.35V. That would be .05V Vdroop.

That's not what happens on every board. It's just an example.


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> So when i set 1.65V for benching on my water cooled Blood iron and it read 1.60V load under orthos stress thats a wierd Vdroop issue?
> 
> With all 3 of mine the voltages are true all the way up the scale?????



All boards are different. .9V is just like the average... Probably just the batch, stepping, and revision.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

k i c so if i am only raising voltage a very little then vdroop isn't an issue for me


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> k i c so if i am only raising voltage a very little then vdroop isn't an issue for me



For mild OCs, Vdroop isn't an issue.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

k i c its all good


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> For mild OCs, Vdroop isn't an issue.



Should add that for what you seem to be looking at, it shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

u guys say that the xigamatek coolers are better than arctic cooling which model are they available in canda and how much better?


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

Much, much better.

Here's the cheaper of the Xigma HDTs: http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=30012&vpn=HDT-S1283&manufacture=Xigmatek

If you want even better, and are willing to spend even more money, the OCZ Vendetta 2 is a rebadged Xigma cooler. I don't see the better Xigmas listed on NCIX tho. They only stock the model I linked for some reason.


----------



## dark2099 (May 16, 2008)

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=30012&vpn=HDT-S1283&manufacture=Xigmatek  << One of the best coolers out there, probably the one that everyone is referring to.

Gah, too slow, beaten by Wile E


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

goes with intel and with an mx-2 paste this would be good so what is better this or vendetta or vendetta 2


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> goes with intel and with an mx-2 paste this would be good so what is better this or vendetta or vendetta 2



Vendetta 2 is the best out of the 3.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

how much more expensive and what about the noise


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Vendetta 2 is the best out of the 3.



Wait, I made a mistake. The Xigmatech I listed is one of the bigger ones. It's about equal to the Vendetta 2. I confused the Xigmatech with the 92mm model, when it's actually the 120mm model.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

so which is the cheaper xigamatek


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

and what aobut sythe katana 2


----------



## dark2099 (May 16, 2008)

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=29311&vpn=OCZTVEND2&manufacture=OCZ Technology  Link to the OCZ Vendetta 2, don't know about noise personally, but both overall are similar in performance with the stock fan.  From what I read on each cooler from newegg they both go from 20-32 dBA so fairly similar info from manufactures.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

it says 20-32 dba is that a lot


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> it says 20-32 dba is that a lot



Not compared to stock it isn't.

And the Xigma is better than the Scythe.


----------



## MKmods (May 16, 2008)

These threads are always so much fun to read..People take AMD-Intel thing so serious.

They BOTH are fine for gaming. 

When I was in High School it was Chevy  Ford.

EDIT: Im so slow the thread went from Intel-Amd to coolers, lol


----------



## Wile E (May 16, 2008)

MKmods said:


> These threads are always so much fun to read..People take AMD-Intel thing so serious.
> 
> They BOTH are fine for gaming.
> 
> When I was in High School it was Chevy VS Ford.



Ford all the way. lol.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

toyota tundra..!!!


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

Eh I'm thinking my '97 Camaro SS  or my '89 Iroc-Z... Hmm can't tell which one I prefer huh...


----------



## MKmods (May 16, 2008)

way to derail the thread Mark


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

haha big offtopic moment right there


----------



## Snipe343 (May 16, 2008)

To make it go from procs to cars it takes a real man XD


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

for sure for sure...


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 16, 2008)

hey, 1 thing about the blood iron board. It doesn't support 45nm cpu's without a bio's update. In which case you'll need a 65nm cpu to perform the bio's update(I was gonna get a BI until I found that out)


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

BarbaricSoul said:


> hey, 1 thing about the blood iron board. It doesn't support 45nm cpu's without a bio's update. In which case you'll need a 65nm cpu to perform the bio's update(I was gonna get a BI until I found that out)



My second Blood Iron and all the new releases come with the newest bios already installed.


----------



## spearman914 (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> it says 20-32 dba is that a lot



20-32 dba is like rolling a handball down a slanted street. It should sound like the volume level like that. Giving examples.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 16, 2008)

My Lanparty P35 supported my E7200(45nm) out of the box so im guessing a blood iron would.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 16, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> My second Blood Iron and all the new releases come with the newest bios already installed.




well damn


----------



## L|NK|N (May 16, 2008)

Be young. Have fun. Go Intel.

kthxbye


----------



## FatForester (May 16, 2008)

Toyota 4Runner! ... lol well I just got done reading most of the comments and got all hyped up again. Too bad now it's basically over. Well, it was entertaining while it lasted.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> 20-32 dba is like rolling a handball down a slanted street. It should sound like the volume level like that. Giving examples.



what the does that mean, very quiet, slightly, ok, not quiet, loud

edit: sorry wrong quote before


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> what the hell does that mean, very quiet, slightly, ok, not quiet, loud



Because he passed on the Blood Iron without knowing the newer release was ready out of the box for the 45nm CPU's.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

sorry wrong quote before check now......


----------



## sneekypeet (May 16, 2008)

I would say there would be a noise that is audible but bearly at that rating. like a low wirr in the background. Also depends if your PC is on the floor vs the desktop right next to your ear!


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

its on like the floor but a bit higher on a little stand that is part of my table


----------



## FatForester (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> what the hell does that mean, very quiet, slightly, ok, not quiet, loud
> 
> edit: sorry wrong quote before



Chillax man, we've all got ya covered. You're allowed to freak out when you've blown up or melted something (you won't).


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> My Lanparty P35 supported my E7200(45nm) out of the box so im guessing a blood iron would.



would the gigabyte p35 ds3l


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

FatForester said:


> Chillax man, we've all got ya covered. You're allowed to freak out when you've blown up or melted something (you won't).



my bad long day had like 40 post todaay on this threaad argueing and now have a huge migran... but long weekend ahead for us canadaians


----------



## FatForester (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> my bad long day had like 40 post todaay on this threaad argueing and now have a huge migran... but long weekend ahead for us canadaians



My apologies. I get migraines every once and a while, so I can feel your pain.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

thanx and what is the difference between gigabyte p35 ds3l rev.1.0 and rev 2.0


----------



## Silverel (May 16, 2008)

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/3

Good read.

When it comes to gaming, your GPU is SOOO much more important.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

so do u think if all im doing is gaming then e7200 is a waste... and save the $50 and go with a better gpu than the 3850 like 3870 or 8800gt


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 16, 2008)

Saadz, I hate to crap your thread but ......

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813127049

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116070

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102715

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146565

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371006

Should be enough said


----------



## niko084 (May 16, 2008)

Well here is a question, whats your overall budget here?
You obviously want to game...

Anything you know you want for sure, hard drive size, how many ATI or Nvidia don't care???


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> Saadz, I hate to crap your thread but ......
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813127049
> 
> ...



i love every item except maybe the e7200 instead of e2200 and the psu if i may so go crossfire lter on when prices drop he psu can't handle it


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Well here is a question, whats your overall budget here?
> You obviously want to game...
> 
> Anything you know you want for sure, hard drive size, how many ATI or Nvidia don't care???



1 hard drive and 250 gb is enough... ati or nvidia don't matter i was thinking of going single 9600 gt ot 9600 gso but then cdawall told me of the idea of going 3850 crosfire and the new 4xxx series comes out and prices drop... but i was thinking that may be overkill and i might just need one 8800 gt or 8800 gs


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 16, 2008)

Alright...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817101021

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115052


----------



## kyle2020 (May 16, 2008)

personally being a 5000+ BE owner myself, im going to favour the 5000, but i also have never used intel. My black edit. is currently running @ 3.1 Ghz stable, and im pretty sure it can go to 3.3, possibly more with the right settings. Its only personal experience though, and like i said, ive never used intel.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 16, 2008)

@ kyle

So in between the 2 of us we should be able to get him a rough idea what to look for. Me being the mainly intel owner, you being the mainly AMD owner. Although truly that PSU I linked to is really good for budget and powerful.


----------



## kyle2020 (May 16, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> @ kyle
> 
> So in between the 2 of us we should be able to get him a rough idea what to look for. Me being the mainly intel owner, you being the mainly AMD owner. Although truly that PSU I linked to is really good for budget and powerful.



Yes we can. I have heard the intel blows the socks off AMD currently, even with their line of dual cores in the value : power ratio, but to go for an intel setup id have to buy a new motherboard, re install windows, blah blah blah . . . you get the picture. If i could reccommend one thing saaz, it would be to wait, save up and go intel quad core. If you cant wait, and want the best for the best price, go intel. if you cant wait, and want a processor thats hungry to be OC'ed from my experience but are willing to sacrifice a little money compared to a similar intel processor, got with the BE. 

Like Jr said, we can always supply comparisons - im still working on overclocking mine, but once i have her maxed out + stable ill send you some 3dmark resulkts etc, and Jr can to compare them that way if it helps.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

and it will provide enoguh juice for xfire and the thing is reading the reviews they say its a bit noise but thats not that big of a deal...

thing is im in canda so i gotta find another site except for newegg.com i hate it we are right beside us yet they don't ship here... but i found ncix and direct canada and like a million others so... itll have to do...


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 16, 2008)

It wouldn't truly be a comparison via gaming though, which what he is mainly looking at. Considering I am running crossfire 2600 Pro's. But, I will say this, there are quite a few games I can run max'd @ 1440x900 no AA/AF and then there are poorly coded games like DiRT that don't support crossfire that I could still run 1024x768 medium. 

I could give a few all around benches but if you need any info saadz, just ask.

@saadz

Yes, it would be plenty.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 16, 2008)

I found something on NCIX that may help
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=23934&vpn=OCZ600SXS&manufacture=OCZ Technology


----------



## FatForester (May 16, 2008)

In my opinion, two 3850's in Crossfire is a bad idea. One 3870 will do you better in the long run, since you can always add another 3870. If you can give a general idea of your budget and gaming resolution, this can all go by much smoother.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> I found something on NCIX that may help
> http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=23934&vpn=OCZ600SXS&manufacture=OCZ Technology



yea i was thinking of steathxstream but i don't know about ocz mail  in rebate if it is canada so i was thinking of the corsair VX 550, i don't know...



FatForester said:


> In my opinion, two 3850's in Crossfire is a bad idea. One 3870 will do you better in the long run, since you can always add another 3870. If you can give a general idea of your budget and gaming resolution, this can all go by much smoother.



for know prob ill just go with 1 3870, 3850 or 8800 gt, 9600 gt, or 8800 gs... also my gaming res will probably be 1280 x 1024... and budget is like $700 ...(for now)


----------



## MKmods (May 16, 2008)

1+ vote for the corsair 550, Its a solid PS that should be able to handle a few future upgrades.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

anyone know if any prices for intel chips are gonna dorp soon


----------



## Silverel (May 16, 2008)

Probably around the same time X3's drop. AMD and Intel tend to do them at the same time. X3's have been out for almost a month now, shouldn't be too much longer.


----------



## erocker (May 16, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> anyone know if any prices for intel chips are gonna dorp soon



I don't know about a drop, but you can get this excellent performing chip right now for a good price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115052


----------



## thoughtdisorder (May 16, 2008)

erocker said:


> I don't know about a drop, but you can get this excellent performing chip right now for a good price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115052



+1. And according to the reviews can OC to 3+ rather easily........


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 16, 2008)

yea i am considering that i was just wondering if the intel chip prices are gonna drop by the start or july and if so how much... also does anyone know how much the ati 3xxx series prices are gonna drop and when...


----------



## quickie (May 17, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> thanx and what is the difference between gigabyte p35 ds3l rev.1.0 and rev 2.0



Dont think anyone answered this? 

anyways, the only difference, I can see is that rev. 2.0 has two more usb ports on the back panel.

I just got a e2160 with a Gigabyte P35-DS3L (rev2.0) board. o/c to 9*333 on stock voltage.


----------



## farlex85 (May 17, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> yea i am considering that i was just wondering if the intel chip prices are gonna drop by the start or july and if so how much... also does anyone know how much the ati 3xxx series prices are gonna drop and when...



You'll see the 3xxx series drop when the 4xxx series is released, or just before that, which I believe is June-July sometime. Intel prices won't drop significantly for a while I would think, $10 here or there for your price range.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

Silverel said:


> http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/3
> 
> Good read.
> 
> When it comes to gaming, your GPU is SOOO much more important.



I was ust reading the article in that link and it makes me think that for gaming even if i oc y e7200 itll b a waste cause it shows that a 4amd 4850 can pratically match a 
Intel Quad QX9770 in gaming so what is the point of spending more on a cpu if it doesn't matter for gaming


----------



## spearman914 (May 17, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> I was ust reading the article in that link and it makes me think that for gaming even if i oc y e7200 itll b a waste cause it shows that a 4amd 4850 can pratically match a
> Intel Quad QX9770 in gaming so what is the point of spending more on a cpu if it doesn't matter for gaming



Yes it DOES matter. If you have a high-end cpu then you need a gpu that is not bottlenecked. A bottlenecked cpu can result a 9800 GX2 in 1 FPS. Believe me....... Graphics card ARE the most important for gaming but so is the CPU.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

hmmm so will the 9600 gt or 8800 gt or 8800 gs or 3850 or 3870 be bottlenecked by a e7200, e2200 or BE 5000+


----------



## spearman914 (May 17, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> hmmm so will the 9600 gt or 8800 gt or 8800 gs or 3850 or 3870 be bottlenecked by a e7200, e2200 or BE 5000+



Nope. Those are not considered a bottleneck yet. But if you are going to the Dual 8800 or 9800 series then go for Quad Cores or E8XXX series.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

so technically what is bottlenecked and if those are not being bottlenecked than wouldn't it be better to go with a cheaper card if they give the same preformance


----------



## ShadowFold (May 17, 2008)

I would get a 8800GT/9600GT and a E7200 cause thats what I got and I can tell you, nothing bottlenecks  I actually noticed a large jump even at stock that my E7200 was a big improvement over my E2200.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

can u tell me some benchies shawdowfold at an oc'ed e7200 on stock vcore


----------



## ShadowFold (May 17, 2008)

I usually get 50-75 fps on TF2 with 16x AA and all settings up on a 32 man full 2fort or Dustbowl server.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

nice now is the 3.1 ghz on stoc vcore and how much did u oc te 8800 gt also how much faster per core is the e7200 over the e2200


----------



## ShadowFold (May 17, 2008)

Im on stock volts, its actually 3.2ghz tho. E2200 is Allendale 1mb L2 and 2.2ghz, E7200 is Wolfdale-3m 3mb L2 and 2.53ghz(has a .5 multi). My 8800GT is stock 600mhz I got it at 751mhz 24/7, im sure I can go higher but I havent tried yet.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Im on stock volts, its actually 3.2ghz tho. E2200 is Allendale 1mb L2 and 2.2ghz, E7200 is Wolfdale-3m 3mb L2 and 2.53ghz(has a .5 multi). My 8800GT is stock 600mhz I got it at 751mhz 24/7, im sure I can go higher but I havent tried yet.



so how much could that 2 mb help for gaming


----------



## FatForester (May 17, 2008)

The cache helps out quite a bit, about 10-15% in the extreme cases. The e7200 is a good boost over the e2200, but here's a comparison of the e8400 and e7200 to give you an idea of how much cache matters (and doesn't in some cases).

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e7200_4.html#sect0


----------



## niko084 (May 17, 2008)

Cache gives more "quickness" then speed, because the cache has to be reloaded itself.

I'm surprised this thread is still active.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 17, 2008)

is it true that the next line of games are designed to use 2+ cores so tri-core phenoms and quad cores have a huge advantage over even the best of dual-cores


----------



## dark2099 (May 18, 2008)

I would say that is probably true. With multi-core processors being the only type of CPU being sold in new pre-built desktops (least all the ones I see) it would be more advantageous for developers to start using the full potential of these processors.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 18, 2008)

By the time Quads will be the norm, Q6600/9x00's will be slow.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 18, 2008)

so wouldn't it be better to instead of getting a e7200 get a tri-core phenom or quad core


----------



## spearman914 (May 18, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> so wouldn't it be better to instead of getting a e7200 get a tri-core phenom or quad core



But then you will have to switch the motherboard too. Since motherboards don't have dual sockets...... And I've heard phenom quads sux for OCing.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 18, 2008)

no a msi k9a2 cf-f v2 can support all phenoms... and if i get a tri-core 8650 or 8450 i can oc it to about 2.7-3 ghz not bad and it will be really good for gaming... especially in the future or i could go with the e7200 now and later upgrade


----------



## sneekypeet (May 18, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> But then you will have to switch the motherboard too. Since motherboards don't have dual sockets...... And I've heard phenom quads sux for OCing.



There are mobo's with dual sockets on them..."skulltrail"....but what I dont get , no CPU mentioned to this point requires dual sockets?


----------



## Wile E (May 18, 2008)

That xbit link is pointless for modern gaming. The cache will not make a difference in newer titles, or in resolutions above 1024x768. At that low of a resolution, the video card is barely getting worked, because it's waiting on the cpu to catch up. But notice, absolutely none of the games they used to test ever dropped below playable. Most stayed above 100fps, in fact. Turn the resolution up, and there won't be a difference, because the cpu would then be waiting for the card to catch up.

And as far as tri or quad core. Don't need them if your primary concern is gaming. There is zero difference on my rig in gaming between an E6600, a Q6600, and this QX9650 when they are all at 3.6GHz. The one possible exception is SupCom, but I don't do RTS's, so I never tested the theory.

The E7200 will give you the best blend of price, gaming, and all around performance.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (May 18, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> There are mobo's with dual sockets on them..."skulltrail"....but what I dont get , no CPU mentioned to this point requires dual sockets?




Yeah, the skulltrail set-up, do you realise what that intails? Here's a quick run down.
$659.99 skulltrail motherboard
two $1548.99 Intel Core2 Extreme QX9775 CPU's
two $604.99 9800 GX2 SSC(yeah, I know you don't have to run 9800's, but why wouldn't you run 2 of the fatsest cards available with this set-up?)
$299.99 G.SKILL 4GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800(I'm very surprised the skulltrail only does ddr2 800 ram)

1 thing I don't understand though is how the skulltrail can run 2 cpu's. I was always under the impression that windows OS's only allowed for 1 cpu. For 2 cpu's you needed a mac OS. But yeah, for a skulltail system, you looking at spending $5267.94 on just CPU's, motherboard, video card, and RAM, you still have disk drives, hard drives, PSU, cooling, speakers, probably a soundcard(why would you do onboard sound with this set-up) and a case to hold it all. So basically, your looking at a $6000-7000 price tag for a skulltrail set-up properly equiped


----------



## jonmcc33 (May 18, 2008)

Considering how much more Intel can overclock? The E2200 by far.


----------



## cdawall (May 18, 2008)

actually you can run dual cpu on server 08 which is almost exactly the same as vista


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 18, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That xbit link is pointless for modern gaming. The cache will not make a difference in newer titles, or in resolutions above 1024x768. At that low of a resolution, the video card is barely getting worked, because it's waiting on the cpu to catch up. But notice, absolutely none of the games they used to test ever dropped below playable. Most stayed above 100fps, in fact. Turn the resolution up, and there won't be a difference, because the cpu would then be waiting for the card to catch up.
> 
> And as far as tri or quad core. Don't need them if your primary concern is gaming. There is zero difference on my rig in gaming between an E6600, a Q6600, and this QX9650 when they are all at 3.6GHz. The one possible exception is SupCom, but I don't do RTS's, so I never tested the theory.
> 
> The E7200 will give you the best blend of price, gaming, and all around performance.



ill be gaming at 1280 x 1024 will that test my vid card and what if i get 1600 x 1200


----------



## cdawall (May 18, 2008)

@ 1600x1200 cpu really wont matter to much anything @ 3ghz+ will give about the same framerate


----------



## spearman914 (May 18, 2008)

sneekypeet said:


> There are mobo's with dual sockets on them..."skulltrail"....but what I dont get , no CPU mentioned to this point requires dual sockets?



And server boards too. But I meant theres no motherboards with dual sockets that are AMD and Intel. He has an AMD board and he wants to go intel later but that will require an intel motherboard so...


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 18, 2008)

so on what resolution will test the cpu


----------



## ShadowFold (May 19, 2008)

1600x1200 and higher, spend more on the card. 1440x900 and lower get a good CPU with a good GPU.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 19, 2008)

im either gonna get 9600 gt 8800 gt or 3850, 3870 soo with that be good for 1280 x 1024 or 1400 x 900, 1600 x 1200 or will it be over kill


----------



## cdawall (May 19, 2008)

1280x1024 and 1400x900 is fine on the 3850 256mb everything over that a 3850 512mb oc'd wil run just fine


----------



## spearman914 (May 19, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> im either gonna get 9600 gt 8800 gt or 3850, 3870 soo with that be good for 1280 x 1024 or 1400 x 900, 1600 x 1200 or will it be over kill



All those resolutions are good for all the cards except 1280 x 1024 or else the choice will be 8800 GS? For those combinations wand off getting a 8800 GT and 1600 x 1200


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 19, 2008)

so those cards will only be tested if i run them on 1600 x 1200, so if im only on 1400 x 900 and 1280 x 1200 what would be best?


----------



## cdawall (May 19, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> so those cards will only be tested if i run them on 1600 x 1200, so if im only on 1400 x 900 and 1280 x 1200 what would be best?



HD3850 512mb and a light oc will get you running that just as fast as an 8800GT


----------



## spearman914 (May 19, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> so those cards will only be tested if i run them on 1600 x 1200, so if im only on 1400 x 900 and 1280 x 1200 what would be best?



No I meant those resolutions suits the card. And about the 1400 x 900 / 1280 x 1200 thing it really depends on what card and specifications/


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 19, 2008)

YEA BUT WOULD THE 8800 GT or 3870 or any other of those cards be overkill on 1280 x 1200 and 1400 x 900


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 19, 2008)

by the time this poll is done, the Nehalem and Bulldozer will be out, making both these CPUs useless.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 19, 2008)

the decision is not in cpu's iv already decided to go with the e7200, the thing is that i was wondering if getting that good of a vid card would be overkill for the res im playin at


----------



## ShadowFold (May 19, 2008)

You should be fine with a 9600GT or HD 3870.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 19, 2008)

on 1280 x 1024 or 1440 x 900


----------



## farlex85 (May 19, 2008)

You would be fine w/ a 9600 or 3850 at that res for pretty much any game, right now. That being said, unless you are prepared to sell your card for a new one in the near future, I would get the best you can afford. The vc becomes obsolete faster than any other component, and getting one that goes over what you need right now will keep it relavent longer.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 19, 2008)

i have a recommendation for video card, if the price is right that is heh.

http://www.asus.com.tw/products.aspx?l1=2&l2=160


----------



## FatForester (May 19, 2008)

I have a deep, deep hatred for this thread. saadz, go with any of the 9600 GT, 8800GT / GS, 3850, 3870 and you'll be just fine. At this rate by the time you'll make a decision we'll have 5870's and 11000GT's!


----------



## Wile E (May 19, 2008)

saadzaman126 said:


> YEA BUT WOULD THE 8800 GT or 3870 or any other of those cards be overkill on 1280 x 1200 and 1400 x 900



Overkill, what is this word you speak of? lol.

I would get something at least the speed of an 8800GT. That will last you longer than the cheaper options, and give you more options for resolution choices if you decide to upgrade your monitor at any point. 3870 would do well also, but it's not quite as fast as the 8800GT, and the current ATI offerings suffer pretty steep performance hits when you enable anti-aliasing. (Can't wait till they get that ironed out.) Choice is yours tho.


----------



## saadzaman126 (May 19, 2008)

alright... got it


----------

