quote: you're bringing the monitor into the equation?
quote: I prefer my old CRT with a 125Hz refresh
quote: that doesn't mean that if you have a game running at 75 FPS and a game running at 100 FPS on a 75Hz monitor you wont see a difference.
quote: I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear
quote: It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.
quote: Proof is here: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
quote: And that proves your point how?
quote: 939 is a dead socket, where is your upgrade path?
quote: Why are you calling people names? Usually that is reserved for people that can't prove their point. Oh wait.
quote: if you buy a slow processor in the socket, of course there will always be the faster processors to move up to...but with a core2 and lga775 you can buy the FASTEST processor now, and still be assured to move up to new processors coming out
quote: If you trust (which, obviously, is only one option) solely the numbers he presented, and you consider solely the point he's looking at without considering anything else, then his point can be well taken
quote: its pointless to compare a single core A64 to a Core 2
quote: The problem is that he's not willing to make a fair comparison (i.e. keeping cost or performance equal)
quote: the whole reason the FX series of Athlon's moved from dual core to single core was that even though the clock speed dropped (2.8GHz single core for the FX-57, 2.6GHz dual core for the FX-60) was because the majority of applications and games ran faster on dual core
quote: right now a single core Athlon 64 is not available at higher speeds than the dual cores, so performance is hardly going to increase
quote: I made two comparisons that showed that Intel beat AMD
quote: I've qualified that in each of my posts that I was talking about chips >$200
quote: Just face the facts that you've gone from talking about AMD single cores beating price/performance than Intel's new chips to saying that for under $100 chips, AMD still rules
quote: so take the advice that everyone is telling you and understand that overall the best bang for your buck is in a core2duo
quote: Tsuwamono, be my guest and show me some decent gaming benchmarks on anandtech, I mean benchmarks that compare some modern 3D games on A64 single core and C2D dualcores. So far I've only seen fanboys downmodding my posts and not a single number. Be first, if you can of course. I showed the numbers, now it's your turn. Show me your hard anandtech numbers or shut up. Thank you :)
quote: Your benchies I take no issue with. Althon is a great value, it's just not the best choice for everyone
quote: if you're spending less than $200 for a CPU, AMD has the best bang for the buck
quote: sometime later when my work load is mostly heavily multithreaded with a lot of dual core friendly games - then I just go to newegg and grab whatever has best bang for buck there from dualcores
quote: you bought a dead socket (939) and won't be able to find best-bang-for-your-buck dual core in that platform
quote: boxed NEW fx55 is $239 on the egg, boxed NEW fx-60 is $589, boxed NEW e6400 is $220 IIRC
quote: boxed NEW fx55 is $239 on the egg
Core 2 Duo - 58 frames per second
A64 4000 - 48 frames per second
Now let'd look at the price at newegg:
Core 2 Duo - $222
A64 4000 - $80
quote: It just shows that price increases exponentially with performance, which is common sense in any high tech market
quote: your the guy who only posted one benchmark result, and priced a retail boxed processor with an OEM one
quote: i don't think anyone can say that for the same price and performance 1 core is better then 2
quote: The problem with comparing retail to OEM is the heatsink/fan unit is included in retail and not in OEM, which adds at least $20 to the price of the OEM unit
quote: my loyalty is to price/performance leader, aka C2D at this time
quote: Wrong, E6600 @ 3.5GHz. AMD has nothing for the same price ($360CDN) that will touch it, even at stock
quote: If you can only afford a $75 CPU well that sucks, you should get an education and a better job
quote: that's why gamers stay with amd - get leet FX (or 1mb cahe a64 if you're cheap), oc it and get real fast single core which would smoke intel dualcores for the same price.
quote: get leet FX (or 1mb cahe a64 if you're cheap), oc it and get real fast single core which would smoke intel dualcores for the same price.
quote: Your first post did say you wanted to include overclocking
quote: i shoed you that your 80 to 220 Newegg comparison was flawed in that its an open OEM version to a Retail Box version
quote: C2D is worlds better. And it also happen to beat the crap out of AMD's best offerings
quote: the 805 beats the 4000+ and even its dual core counterparts when overclocked
quote: and AGAIN i say, that for the same price and relative performance, its better to have more cores then more speed
quote: why just say intel was 33% more expensive, why don't you say amd is 25% cheaper? cause 33% sounds worse?
quote: one should be able to do at least decently with that socket for a short while
quote: people hanging around old 939 systems that drop 600 bucks on their graphics cards will be slightly disappointed
quote: I just paid $100 for a single core, then I have to pay another $200 for an X2. That's $300. Why not spend $200? That's $100 cheaper.
quote: And considering my time is worth $100 an hour
quote: Considering if you look on ebay for AMD procs, you wont find many single cores that are selling for $100
quote: The point is, when you buy something old, and then try to sell it once it's obsolete, you usualy don't get what you paid for back out of it
quote: You started with a 3700+, and now you want to talk about an FX-55