BleepingComputer.com > What Kind Of Processor Should I Get?

Full Version: What Kind Of Processor Should I Get?

BleepingComputer.com > Hardware > System Building and Upgrading

mightyflail

Aug 1 2006, 04:47 PM

Hello again!

Well, my journey of upgrading my computer has begun! I am finally upgrading to a PCI-e motherboard so I can buy a new graphics card, but it seems like if i do that, I need a new processor to go along with it (my current one is an old socket A Athlon) I'm somewhat educated on the types of processors are out there, but I would still like some advise.

So, this is the graphics card I'm looking at if it helps to know: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814130035

Also, I haven't purchased the motherboard yet, so with your suggestions of processors could you also help me find a a decent MB that's inexpensive?? Oh, I'd it would be nice if the processor didn't exceed $200. (and the cheaper the better

) Thanks!! Your posts are appreciated!!

BlackSpyder

Aug 1 2006, 05:06 PM

Personally since its an InVidea card I would suggerst an Intel processor w/ an ASUS mobo.
Because:
1) AMD is buying/just bought ATi so who knows if their NVidea support will continue (from the rumors I here Intel has already dropped ATi Crossfire support

2) I Like ASUS mobos they seem very stable

TheEmuRider

Aug 1 2006, 05:41 PM

Well, AMD is dropping prices like mad... You can get a 939 AMD xp 64 3500+ for under 100 USD shipped, and a 3800+ for just a bit over 100 shipped.

Those are good options.

protozero

Aug 1 2006, 05:45 PM

You might want to look around for a new Core 2 Socket motherboard. They shouldn't be to pricey, and the new Core 2 processors are quite cheap. You can get one for around 360$ and it'll blow down a 1,200$ FX-62 in almost any application and game. But also AMD has droped their prices of their older 939 ( not sure about the AM2 sockets,but I think so ) So you should be able to get a nice Dual core AMD processor for a good price.

usasma

Aug 1 2006, 07:57 PM

I've used Asus mobo's and P4's exclusively since my bad experience with a Tyan mobo, Via chipset and an AMD Thunderbird processor.

But, the times they are a changing - so I'm about to embark on building my first PC with an AMD in a long while (it's an office system - so I don't need high-performance). I believe that AMD has done a lot to remedy the problems from several years back and they're now on an even keel with Intel.

Mr Alpha

Aug 2 2006, 07:15 AM

At the $200 price-point and lower I would say AMD has better value. If you go up to $250 or higher Core 2 is the only choice. You can find the Athlon X2 4200+ going for a little under $200 and I think I've seen the Athlon 64 4000+ going for $200 as well. There is also the issue of Core 2 motherboards. They're very expensive. Most go for over $200, although you can find some as low as $150, which isn't directly cheap.

QUOTE(BlackSpyder @ Aug 2 2006, 01:06 AM)

1) AMD is buying/just bought ATi so who knows if their NVidea support will continue (from the rumors I here Intel has already dropped ATi Crossfire support

2) I Like ASUS mobos they seem very stable

nVidia support isn't going anywhere. Even if it will disappear it won't happen for a few years. I also like ASUS motherboards.

QUOTE(TheEmuRider @ Aug 2 2006, 01:41 AM)

Well, AMD is dropping prices like mad... You can get a 939 AMD xp 64 3500+ for under 100 USD shipped, and a 3800+ for just a bit over 100 shipped.

Since AM2 prices dropped as well I would recommend going for a AM2 motherboard and CPU instead. It will give you more more upgrade possibilities in the future.

QUOTE(usasma @ Aug 2 2006, 03:57 AM)

AMD Thunderbird processor.

Uhh... Don't say that name. You bring up a lot of awful memories.

disneycast

Aug 2 2006, 11:01 AM

AMD is better. Period. Oh yeah.

DJBPace07

Aug 2 2006, 05:39 PM

I would go with AMD. When it comes to gaming, the Core 2 Duo doesn't outperform AMD's FX line very much. So AMD is the better value for now.

protozero

Aug 2 2006, 11:58 PM

QUOTE(DJBPace07 @ Aug 2 2006, 06:39 PM)

I would go with AMD. When it comes to gaming, the Core 2 Duo doesn't outperform AMD's FX line very much. So AMD is the better value for now.

I'm sorry, but a Intel chip retailed at around 316$ beat the FX-62 by a good margin in almost everything!

disneycast

Aug 3 2006, 01:03 PM

what were they variables in that benchmark test? All of the ones I've looked at have pointed to AMD, especially with multitasking.

Mr Alpha

Aug 3 2006, 01:28 PM

QUOTE(disneycast @ Aug 3 2006, 09:03 PM)

what were they variables in that benchmark test? All of the ones I've looked at have pointed to AMD, especially with multitasking.

Are you sure you're not mixing Core 2 Duo/Extreme and Pentium 4/D/EE. Different variations of the Pentium 4's Netburts architecture has been Intel's main processor for the last 5 years. But last month Intel released a completely new architecture which changed everyting. So any benchmarks pre-dating July 14th 2006 are obsolete. For the new situation you can look at the this Core 2 review, aptly named The Empire Strikes Back, for example. Nowadays, from a strict performance point of view, Intel is better. Period.

A few highlights:

QUOTE(Anand Lal Shimpi @AnandTech)

As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains.

QUOTE(Anand Lal Shimpi @AnandTech)

The 2.4GHz E6600 turned out to be quite an overclocker in our tests. Even though it was hard-locked at a 9 multiplier it reached an amazing 4GHz in the overclocking tests. That represents a 67% overclock.

QUOTE(Anand Lal Shimpi @AnandTech)

Final Words

Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn't lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel's previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete. Intel's Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven't seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6.

Compared to AMD's Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn't stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD's FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn't sound bad at all.

magman68classic

Aug 3 2006, 01:59 PM

Im going to get an Intel Core 2 Duo

DJBPace07

Aug 3 2006, 04:15 PM

I'm a firm believer in not believing benchmarks so much as actually putting the processors through real-life testing. In certain apps, the Duo does outperform the FX but in gaming it's pretty even with the Duo for now check out this article: [H] Intel Core 2 Gaming Performance The Intel Dual Core does offer performance a performance boost, but it's not enough to amount to anything.

Mr Alpha

Aug 3 2006, 04:54 PM

Not as long as the game is GPU limited, no. But I don't think the fact that a $1000 CPU will be GPU limited across the board unless you got a multi-GPU solution is any news. I could have told you that without the article. The fact that the top end CPUs aren't worth their price is even less a revelation.

For an article that throws around "real-world" all the time it isn't very real-world. I don't think the X6800 nor FX-62 nor even the E6700 can be considered very real world processors. They're too expensive. It's the E6300, E6400 and E6600 which are the real contenders.

That sites problem is that they only have a E6700 and X6800. So when other sites get down to business and discuss the processors which people are interested in and might actually buy, they have to settle for old news in a new coat of sensationalism.

DJBPace07

Aug 3 2006, 10:36 PM

I agree, most top-of-the-line CPU's generally aren't worth their price unless the buyer wants to have the latest and greatest. The value simply isn't there when comparing speed vs. cost.

JPHarvey

Aug 4 2006, 12:41 AM

And the winner is.......Intel!

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1996940,00.asp

Wizdabest

Aug 4 2006, 11:00 AM

Should have probably looked but I have a question about that as well in my thread here,

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/top...tml#entry333223

I just want to know that can I still use my ram I have now because if so, all I need is a E6600 and a mobo and I can get that for like half the price of a FX-62. How much are the prices of the AMD 939's being lowered? I'm looking at the E6600 and if they can come neck and neck with the FX-62, then I don't see a reason to not go with it unless the FX-62's prices is lowered by more than half.

DJBPace07

Aug 4 2006, 05:39 PM

Intel is the winner...for now. The new prices, are on AMD's site at this link: Processor Pricing. The percentage of price decrease isn't uniform, some are lowered by 30% others only 20%.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.