HL Recommended Hardware Lists

[Stormcrow]

Ed is right about 50 dollars making a difference, it took me 2 months of steady saving with neglect to any extras (like renting a movie, going out for dinner) to get my 8800. I could have gotten the X1950Pro, and still be happy with the performance, but seeing the 8800 in action is worth the skimping to me. However, the truth is that the Core2 whomps the X2, and if someone was buying a brand new build I'd tell them to go with Intel despite being an AMD fan. If someone is building their own rig, normally they have more of a flexible budget and those really trying to pinch pennies can get a prebuilt OEM for much cheaper then building it.

AMD still has it's spot though, and thats the 6000+ in the 150-200 dollar range. IF overclocking is an issue and not taken into account, I'd recommend an E4400 for budgeters, an X2 6000+ for those hovering around the 150-160 mark, and the E6600 for anything higher followed by the Q6600. But since Conroe and Allendale can be overclocked sky high, if the builder in question has no qualms about messing around in the bios and getting the most of their system, then the Core processors smoke X2 and I wouldn't even suggest AMD.

X2 still has a market, but mostly targeted at those who have a specific processor budget and won't be tinkering with their system. Which is pretty much only the case with the 6000+ and the 6200+ if it ever rolls out. In any other situation, which would be most others, I'd say go Intel.

[Elysium]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

and the 6200+ if it ever rolls out.

I would be laughing my ass off if AMD released a 6200+. I was surprised when AMD released the 6000+. Isn't it funny how everybody except AMD realizes that the CPU that used to compete with Intel's P4 generation is still trying to compete with Intel's Core2 generation? Hasn't anyone told AMD that the time are changing? Now, I realize that AMD is releasing Phenom and everything, but until then, isn't it money better spent trying to get Phenom out the door then releasing more outdated techology at a tad higher clock speed?

I don't know, just my take on this whole CPU war thing.

[Sumgai]

I dunno, I think AMD got a little complacent after being ahead of Intel in the gaming market for so long. As a result of that, Core 2 Duo completely turned their world upside down and they're still reeling. I think they've been scrambling just to get what little sales they can, and it doesn't cost alot to release new chips on their old technology with higher clock speeds in hopes a few more sales.

It's too bad too. I really like AMD, but until they pull their collective heads out of the sand and get something worth my time on the market again, I just can't go back to them. That and I'm an nvidia fan boy through and through, so the ATI merger kinda sealed the deal for me as well.

[dnorf87]

Actually guys, if you check out prices and benchmarks, AMD definitely offers higher performance for a certain price point, basically where Intel doesn't have anything...Intel doesn't have a Core 2 for under $100, while AMD has what...5? They are still pretty solid processors, just not as nice as Core 2.

For a budget gaming rig, you can't go wrong with an AMD. You could save more money, and in some cases, get more performance out of it.

Example: Compare the Athlon X2 4000+ to the Pentium Dual Core E2140...the AMD comes out on top. Now compare the Athlon X2 4400+ to the Pentium Dual Core E2160, about the same price, and the 4400+ either comes out to be dead even, or slightly ahead. Now...on to the slightly more expensive processors. The Athlon 5000+ compared to the E4400. Hell, lets compare the 5000+ to the E6400, which is a whole 166 MHz faster than what you can get for $5 more than the 5000+, and has the faster front side bus. Even then, the 5000+ comes out on top in most benchmarks.

Now for the interesting part. The Athlon 64 X2 5600+ outperforms the E6550 in some benchmarks (which is quite a bit more expensive) they seem to be 50/50. The E6550 comes out on top in about half of the benchmarks. Maybe a few more than half.

My point is, at the current prices, AMD still offers a nice processor, though they do use up more energy, overclock worse, run warmer, and are overall not exactly what most overclocker's want, they're still great for a super cheap budget build, with a decent graphics card, such as an 8600gt, maybe even a 7600gt.

[Capper]

Originally Posted by Sumgai

I dunno, I think AMD got a little complacent after being ahead of Intel in the gaming market for so long. As a result of that, Core 2 Duo completely turned their world upside down and they're still reeling. I think they've been scrambling just to get what little sales they can, and it doesn't cost alot to release new chips on their old technology with higher clock speeds in hopes a few more sales.

It's too bad too. I really like AMD, but until they pull their collective heads out of the sand and get something worth my time on the market again, I just can't go back to them. That and I'm an nvidia fan boy through and through, so the ATI merger kinda sealed the deal for me as well.

I actually won't go as far as to say AMD was complacent....I think they wanted to release the best product possible, and it just has taken longer than they thought. i also think they lost site of the big goal......the CPU market by purchasing ATI, which took a huge chunk of money, and has left them in a precarious position.

Originally Posted by dnorf87

Actually guys, if you check out prices and benchmarks, AMD definitely offers higher performance for a certain price point, basically where Intel doesn't have anything...Intel doesn't have a Core 2 for under $100, while AMD has what...5? They are still pretty solid processors, just not as nice as Core 2.

not true, INTEL has two very capable processors in the E2140 and 2160 under $100.

Originally Posted by dnorf87

For a budget gaming rig, you can't go wrong with an AMD. You could save more money, and in some cases, get more performance out of it.

for a budget gaming rig, both AMD and INTEL offer fine choices.......benchmarking means little when it comes to gaming, as there is a range of FPS that are optimal, anything less and you'll have a poor gaming experience, anything more, and you can't see any difference.....I'd argue that 50-100FPS for online and 45-60/70 for anything else is fine.....and the GPU is more importnat.....so it comes down to personal preference, and both camps have their fanbois.

[One4yu2c]

Originally Posted by dnorf87

They're [AMD] still great for a super cheap budget build, with a decent graphics card, such as an 8600gt, maybe even a 7600gt.

The problem here is, the same can be said about Intel's processors, from the friendly priced E4xxx to the E2xxx series. Dollar for dollar, benchmarks are going to be comparable regardless of which side you go for, but a budget based Intel system puts you on a better overall platform, with a much more attractive upgrade path, which can be of particular importance to those spec'ing out a low cost system.

Aside from owning stock in AMD, it's just too difficult to recommend someone go that route at any price point.

Originally Posted by Capper

I actually won't go as far as to say AMD was complacent....

Exactly. I think people overlook that fact that for the last several years, AMD was competing against a stubborn Intel that was dead set on pushing the Netburst architecture. The technology to trump AMD has always been there (Dothan), but it took a drastic change in corporate philosophy for it to translate to the desktop.

Now that Intel is focusing their efforts on the better technology, I wouldn't accuse AMD of being complacent, just out gunned.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by yellowhello

I would be laughing my ass off if AMD released a 6200+. I was surprised when AMD released the 6000+. Isn't it funny how everybody except AMD realizes that the CPU that used to compete with Intel's P4 generation is still trying to compete with Intel's Core2 generation? Hasn't anyone told AMD that the time are changing? Now, I realize that AMD is releasing Phenom and everything, but until then, isn't it money better spent trying to get Phenom out the door then releasing more outdated techology at a tad higher clock speed?

I had a whole thread dedicated to a rant about this exact thing, it was special

Originally Posted by dnorf87

My point is, at the current prices, AMD still offers a nice processor, though they do use up more energy, overclock worse, run warmer, and are overall not exactly what most overclocker's want, they're still great for a super cheap budget build, with a decent graphics card, such as an 8600gt, maybe even a 7600gt.

Capper beats me again, GPU is definitely the key aspect for games, and if your talking a budget gaming rig there'd be a higher clocked single core rather then a lower clocked dual core in it. Games haven't yet started to become widely multithreaded and clockspeed for the CPU is still king. Then theres also the little tidbit that most LCD monitors are limited to a 60hz refresh rate..

[Capper]

OK boys, the HL Recommended Hardware Lists have been updated.....and there are some pretty damned good deals to be found on Newegg........make sure you check them out.

Also, let us know what you think of the list, and any questions you may have. As always, there are good parts that don't make the cut.

I typically shoot for a $500-700 Budget system, a $1250-1500 Mainstream system, and a $2000-2250 Enthusiast system.

This month is the first time in two years I've actually recommended a high end CPU.....INTEL's QX9650 is far and away the most impressive processor I've personally seen....balancing incredible performance with astonishing efficiency....and using a modest O/C with an ASUS board, with everything set to "AUTO" go me a sub 12 minute 32M Super Pi time. Because of this, but also because they are still great processors, the Q6600 and E6850 have been moved to the Mainstream list. For the money, until we see the 9XXX Series from INTEL's 45nm line, these are still the best processors to build your system around.

As to motherboards, the lists are dominated by the usual suspects, ASUS and Gigabyte, pushing the 680i eVGA board off the list. I'll personally say I got the ASUS P5E3 Deluxe WI-FI in last week, and took a peak before sending it on to Sean for review.....and liked it so much I immediately ordered one. Its far and away the best motherboard and bundle I've ever seen, and worth the $300 price tag. you'll also notice the lists dominated by the P35 and X38 chipsets, which in my opinion are head and shoulders above the competition right now, taking nothing away from NVIDIA's offerings (You'll still find eVGA's 650i Ultra on the list)

Memory is this months big deal.......while not much has changed on our lists, where you'll find OCZ and Crucial.....what should catch everyone's eye is the price......at Newegg you can pick up some really great 2GB DDR2 kits for under $50, which is unfathomable. At the same time, you can pick up a pair of 4GB OCZ kits (one 2GBx2, one 1GBx4) for just over $100.

Of course no list is without controversy, but we won't be adding AMD or ATI products until we actually get our hands on them, although AMD's Phenom has been a disappointment to many, once new item price gouging subsides, it may in fact prove a budget and mainstream contender. As to the 3850 and 3870 cards, we have some stuff in, but until we get the testing done, we'll hold off on passing judgement.

[Stormcrow]

You beat me too it, this was essentially the recommended list I had come up with but was waiting for AMD to finish releasing it's products to see their value over price.
One thing, the 320mb G80 is still on the Mainstream list, without a doubt the 8800GT should be in it's place. Almost the same price for superior preformance.

[Elysium]

Hey Capper, have you used that ASUS Maximus X38 board? Is it any good? How does the overclocking compare to a good P35 board?