» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

DanTheMathlete (235)    Feb 22, 2007 - 03:47 pm | Edited on Feb 22, 2007 - 03:50 pm

Im in the same boat. I think AMD has at least another year before I upgrade again. Its fun to build computers but to expensive to try and keep up with the Jones'. The other day someone bought a used 7800 GTX 256MB on ebay for $1. It originally cost me $400 but hopefully I can finally go SLI! » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

Cogito (110)   Feb 21, 2007 - 11:26 am

I think yer all wet on this. Even taking into consideration price/performance ratios, Intel STILL comes out on top. For comparison, I priced out the Intel e6600 at $299.00 (US), which easily outperforms the X2 6000+ at $488.00 (US). (Both are the cheapest prices I could currently find). Now keep this in mind. Intel's "Middle-of-the-line" CPU outperforms AMD's FASTEST CPU to date and saves you $189.00 to boot! That $189.00 will go pretty far into your video card investment. I'm sorry, but at this point, Intel is the only logical choice I can see. » Login to reply to this  asdfqwerty (969)    Feb 21, 2007 - 11:38 pm "Outperforms" in which case? 640x480 in 256 colors with AA and AF turned off? ^_^ The middle and top end of the lines of CPUs don't matter, all that's interesting is what you can get for $100. $300 is way too much for a component with so little practical impact on performance. Save those $200 and buy a beefier vidcard. » Login to reply to this  asdfqwerty (969)    Feb 23, 2007 - 12:20 pm >is simply unfounded. You're a marketing victim. What matters is the performance you get in the end for a given amount of bucks, and a cheapo AMD CPU + expensive vidcard will get you much more performance than a pricey Intel CPU + middle or cheapo vidcard. It's as simple as that. And if you have more money, buy a more expensive vidcard or go SLI. Puting more bucks in a CPU nowadays is pure nonsense. Cheapo Intel CPUs don't really exists outside hot'n noisy son-of-a-P4s. » Login to reply to this  Cogito (110)   Feb 23, 2007 - 05:33 am Your argument makes no sense. You original statement " Price-performance wise, AMD CPUs make a lot more sense nowadays" is simply unfounded. » Login to reply to this  DanTheMathlete (235)   Feb 21, 2007 - 01:21 pm | Edited on Feb 21, 2007 - 01:57 pm » Bottlenecks (bored and at work) You both have valid points. I suggest that there does exist a bottleneck around the CPU, at this point in time, where graphics are concerned. However, the exact effects of bottlenecks and where they occur (hardware and software) is extremely complicated and not well understood. So, the gamer buyer is left with the choice between having a CPU which works the same as a less capable CPU most of the time with the potential of superior performance or the less capable CPU all the time. Those of us gamers who do not need the braggin CPU purchase the cheaper CPU and sacrifice braggin and potential extra performance for a nice dinner date with the wife which can have its own perks. Lastly, the non-gamer needs a fast, cheap single core CPU which AMD is still supplying competitively. The point is, AMD's only option is to aggressively slash prices if they wish to maintain the "gamer on a budget" market share. However this is risky if they can't regain market share in a hurry because slashing prices reduces revenue. The lost revenue will reduce money spent on RnD thus lowering their long term competitiveness. Probably AMD will not compete for the gamer market as it seems to be used for only two things, inter-corporate braggin rights and street cred. I don’t think AMD can "get the new processors out now" because they aren’t ready yet and if they release a dud that turns the AMD market against them it could really hurt them in the long run. Likely, AMD will continue to sell fast, single core application CPUs (that have 2 cores) to businesses and non-multicore users until this area of CPU research is exhausted and hope that their RnD comes up with the next flash in the pan. AMD won’t die and can’t survive on gamers alone. Most end users can't tell the difference anyway. Gaming is in some respects at the cutting edge of hardware capabilities. However, the craving gamers have to exceed a game’s system recommendations is often driven by an adolescent need to be the biggest and the fastest and is this is not a substial motivation for the vast majority of computer users. Take, for example, the average user who doesn’t play games or have glowing fluorescent tubes etching their retinas a 2am through a Plexiglas case and they wont care which CPU is in their box at work as long as it allows them to get the job done but not so fast that they get to much accomplished as this will upset the co-workers and increases the boss' expectations. » Login to reply to this

» Note: You need to be logged in to write a comment!