HL Recommended Hardware Lists

[OCNoob]

Originally Posted by robodude666

But, if you play games like oblivion, a graphics card would make more of a difference than the processor. If you are a hard core gamer, then a graphics card would most likely be more important to you than a cpu. Now, if your using the system for office work or every day work, a c2d would be better because it loads stuff faster.

I have to disagree with both points here. Well actually I don't disagree that a graphics card makes more of a difference in games that the processor, that's been one of the most basic and essential rules for building a gaming system. The only thing about that is... it's only $50 from a X2 to C2D. I'd much rather break a budget by $50 and have an Intel based rig than have an extra $50 and have an AMD system. I know this is getting nitty-gritty as the difference between the two isn't exactly noticeable, but considering the budget, the nitty-gritties have to be considered.

And if you're building a system for office work (presumably light office work), I'd say the X2 system would be pretty much the same as a Core 2 because they both have more than enough power to process some word apps and webpages. In fact, I'd take the extra $50 instead.

[robodude666]

yup, i'd agree with that too.. IF you were paying by credit card. If you were paying by debit card or paypal its a different story as your max budget is all you have.

The difference in processing is not a lot but it can save you like 30s depending on tasks. WinRAR goes a lil faster, and you save time in photoshop and other programs. Doubt it will do much making pie charts and writing in notepad though.

[Computer-Ed]

The X2 vs Core2 discussion usually does not take into account anything past the initial build. In a dollar conparision the X2 is a clear winner. An AMD X2 6000+ sells for $170 and is faster by just a hair than a Core2 E6600 at $221.

So if you are going on strictly the time of build with zero other factors then AMD does have an edge right now in the bang for the buck.

Now if you throw overclocking into the mix the Core2 leaves the X2 in the dust and that $50 extra is a huge performance boost, but for a moment lets throw out overclocking, which in my opinion is overrated.

The AM2 socket is DEAD. AMD will be moving to a new socket this next chip evolution so the AM2 is at or very near it's maximum capabilities.

The 775 however just had new life put in it with the whole new round of Core2 based chips using the same socket. With a little fore thought in the build on motherbaord selection you can create a system with a still very open processor upgrade path.

This means then in considering the choices of the budget system do we want speed now or upgrade later. In the cae of a true budget system I think that upgrade choices are less of an isue so I would personally go for all the speed I could get and then figure the system was a throw away.

That being said with that manner of build in mind AMD is the clear winner. However if you want an upgrade path on the processor or plan to overclock the Core2 cannot be beat.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Computer-Ed

An AMD X2 6000+ sells for $170 and is faster by just a hari than a Core2 E6600 at $221.

If you're talking about GHz then you're wrong because it is irrelevant to compare clock speeds between AMD and Intel CPUs because they use completely different architectures. If you're talking about benchmarks you're still wrong because the E6600 beats the X2 6000 in every benchmark I have seen.

[Computer-Ed]

Originally Posted by Hitman

If you're talking about GHZ then you're wrong because it is irrelevant to compare clock speeds between AMD and Intel CPUs because they use completely different architectures. If you're talking about benchmarks you're still wrong because the E6600 beats the X2 6000 in every benchmark I have seen.

I ma not talking speed but cost. You buy the two chips at the same price, the AMD chips at the price tend to be a bit quicker.

Also you might want to relook at those benchamrks. The 6000+ was barely being beaten by the E6700 with the E6600 a bit below it.

If you Bbuy an Intel chip at the same price as the 6000+,which is the 6550, the 6000+ is clearly quicker, again not a massive margin but still a margin.

My point was in direct DOLLAR comparision AMD current wins. In every other aspect Intel wins.

[Hitman]

WTF? Ok I have no Idea what benchmarks your looking at but the X2 6000 does not beat the 6600.

Welcome to AnandTech.com [ Article: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+: Competing with Aggressive Pricing]

[Yellowhello]

Well, C2D FTW.

[Computer-Ed]

Originally Posted by Hitman

WTF? Ok I have no Idea what benchmarks your looking at but the X2 6000 does not beat the 6600.

Welcome to AnandTech.com [ Article: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+: Competing with Aggressive Pricing]

You did notice that the X2 was able to beat the 6600 on a pretty good amount of those test right? Which was again my point, in the end using those numbers the chips are very close to even. The benchmarks I looked at a while back showed the 6000+ was closer to the 6700 in performance. Even however if we acknowledge a dead heat we still see my point above proved. For the DOLLAR amount AMD is faster.

Using your own proof we see the 6000+ and the 6600 near equal and the AMD $50 or more cheaper, hence proving my original point.

[Yellowhello]

Um, well the E6600 beat the 6000+ in a lot of the tests also.

I'd take the E6600 over the 6000+ any day, even if it's $50 more, IMO.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by Computer-Ed

You did notice that the X2 was able to beat the 6600 on a pretty good amount of those test right? Which was again my point, in the end using those numbers the chips are very close to even. The benchmarks I looked at a while back showed the 6000+ was closer to the 6700 in performance. Even however if we acknowledge a dead heat we still see my point above proved. For the DOLLAR amount AMD is faster.

Using your own proof we see the 6000+ and the 6600 near equal and the AMD $50 or more cheaper, hence proving my original point.

I guess you got something different out of that article then I did. I got the exact opposite. The 6000 didn't win one benchmark.

Overall, the performance advantage still goes to Intel's Core 2 lineup

Not to mention we are only talking about $50 why go with the lesser CPU when a better one is only $50 more. Makes no sense to me.