Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline shocktech  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:18:05 AM(UTC)
shocktech


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 59
Location: Canada, British Columbia

I'm going to buy a new computer in the near future hopefully and I was just wondering if an AMD X2 3800+ (probably overclocked) would bottleneck an 8800GTS 320MB card in the machine a well. Also, this should be in the power supply topic I know but it'll save a thread, I was also thinking about buying an Antec 430W NeoHE Power Supply. The minimum wattage is 400W for the 8800GTS, that's pretty close, do you think it would be fine?
Offline Russman113  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:42:51 AM(UTC)
Russman113


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/22/2003(UTC)
Posts: 693
Location: Other, Other

If your going to Overclock, get atleast a 500 watt PSU. The 8800 GTS is powerhungry at times, especially when your in games.
Offline UnlikelyAura  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:06:42 AM(UTC)
UnlikelyAura


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 92
Location: United States, Ohio

Speaking of bottlenecking, getting an E6700 (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.67GHz)..and DDR2-800 memory.. I won't have to worry about bottlenecking for a long time with gfx cards..will I?
Offline Der Meister  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:17:56 PM(UTC)
Der Meister


Rank: Advanced Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/22/2004(UTC)
Posts: 6,381
Location: United States, Las Vegas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
nope.
Offline Element  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:25:02 AM(UTC)
Element


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/9/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18
Location: United Kingdom, Other

quote:

Originally posted by: shocktech
I'm going to buy a new computer in the near future hopefully and I was just wondering if an AMD X2 3800+ (probably overclocked) would bottleneck an 8800GTS 320MB card in the machine a well. Also, this should be in the power supply topic I know but it'll save a thread, I was also thinking about buying an Antec 430W NeoHE Power Supply. The minimum wattage is 400W for the 8800GTS, that's pretty close, do you think it would be fine?


Invest in an E6400 (not much more in cost) but heaps more performance than an X2 3800+

To be honest even an E6300 will beat the AMD chip hands down.

With regards to you PSU, the antec 430W should be fine as long as you are not going to add tons of hard drives etc...

It may be worth investing in 500Watt unit just to give yourself a bit of future proofing.

The 530Watt Hiperpower Type R is a good PSU for the price.

Good luck with it.
Offline arkeneaver  
#6 Posted : Friday, April 6, 2007 5:59:45 AM(UTC)
arkeneaver


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/31/2006(UTC)
Posts: 107
Location: United Kingdom

e6400 not much more then the amd 3800 ay?

try double the price... the 3800 is about 70 pound...

the e6400 is 130-140 pound

personaly i would go for the 4200... 1mb cache is fine and 2.20ghz is good. you can get it for the same price as the 3800 from novatech... wierdly it has got the same price range...70-80 pound.

the e6300 is 110 pound.. even though it has 2 mb cache, which is great... its clock speed is a mere 1.81 ghz... still more expensive then the 4200. I would say... the price range is on par with the amd 4600, which is 90 pound or so... still a good 20-30 pound cheaper. That has a 2.4ghz clock speed btw.

it can be said that it is better to sacrifice clock speed for cache... but in the long run... intel is more expensive for the equivilant performance...

you might as well get the amd 4000.. it has a 2.00 ghz clock speed... but has 2mb cache.. its around 80 pounds and so making it about 40-50 pound cheaper then the e6400, and 20 pound cheaper then the e6300

If price is not a problem, then go for intel... ive heard great things...

However... if price does matter... go for amd, the equivilant performance is cheaper.
Offline ice91785  
#7 Posted : Saturday, April 7, 2007 8:38:36 AM(UTC)
ice91785


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/21/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Minnesota, United States

You can't really argue thta the e6300 or the e6400 is expensive for a CPU? For the performance those things spit out it is definately worth every single penny...and strangely enough the low-end core 2 CPU will pretty much pwn anything that AMD has right now -- that is including the FX70 series in many cases (this coming from a guy that is by NO means an intel fanboy btw).
Offline arkeneaver  
#8 Posted : Saturday, April 7, 2007 10:04:12 AM(UTC)
arkeneaver


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/31/2006(UTC)
Posts: 107
Location: United Kingdom

only if the 6300 is overclocked... ive seen people overclocking to over 3.0ghz, and remarkably staying stable...

i bought my system about 6 months back.. i regret not getting a core2duo...as i had the money...but i like amd more then intel, purely because ive had amd processors in my computers for as long as i can remember... and i dont particularly like change... but now ive got an am2 board... theres no point in changing... and besides... amd's new quad should give amd a much needed boost. The dual cores amd came up with werent really ment to be top spec performance cpu's...instead, cheap,reliable and efficiant. But that approach went sour, as it seemed that people would rather dive into their pockets and spend more cash on performance... So amd have shoved the cheap and cheery tactic where the sun dont shine... and has gone for serious power. The amd barcelona is definatly not cheap, but will terminate the top dogs "core2duo"
Offline Element  
#9 Posted : Saturday, April 7, 2007 5:42:09 PM(UTC)
Element


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/9/2006(UTC)
Posts: 18
Location: United Kingdom, Other

Significant price drops in the AMD X2 range since my initial post. The core 2 duo's still own the X2 range right across the board. Even a non OC'd E6300 will beat an X2 4800+ in most tasks.

Go for core 2 duo, without a doubt.
Offline arkeneaver  
#10 Posted : Sunday, April 8, 2007 1:26:35 AM(UTC)
arkeneaver


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/31/2006(UTC)
Posts: 107
Location: United Kingdom

the e6300 costs just as much as the 4800. This is what i dont like about some people, the fact that they compare against series not over prices, completly unfair. e6300 does not beat amd chips which have 2mb cache... i wonder why thats is...

Take the 4000 series for example, it can beat the 4800 just because it has extra cache... And anyway... with all the new gpu's coming out... what we really need is quad cores... i wouldnt waste money on an expenisve intel chip right now... buy the 3800 for 60 pound and wait for the amd quad core... the 3800 gives very smooth rates... it can pass out 50 fps on oblivion with everything full wack... providing you have an 8800gts.. Most recent games are harder on the gpu now... so as long as u get a dual core... youll be quite alright until next half.
Offline ice91785  
#11 Posted : Sunday, April 8, 2007 7:26:49 AM(UTC)
ice91785


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/21/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Minnesota, United States

quote:

Originally posted by: arkeneaver
the e6300 costs just as much as the 4800. This is what i dont like about some people, the fact that they compare against series not over prices, completly unfair. e6300 does not beat amd chips which have 2mb cache... i wonder why thats is...


You should google some benchies man........the Core 2 series has a completely different and more efficient architecture than that of AMD (and what they should offer). And yes, they do PWN AMD across the board in EVERY make. I think you are putting much too much emphasis on the cache levels of the two as the Core 2 has what is called 'smart cache' or something like that. So even with less cache (say 512 L2 per core) it would still be more efficient than AMDs CPUs. And besides, as you say the E6300 costs just as much as a 4800 x2 AND offers a HUGE increase in performance...so why not buy it over the 4800 x2?

Also I don't know why you keep siting how expensive the CPUs are when in fact they are extremely reasonable for the performance they throw out. I mean, for $180 for an E6300 that will not bottleneck ANY component on the market currently in anyway -- that to me is definitely not a bad price. Especially when I remember last gen CPUs one had to toss out like $300 for a CPU in top-o-the-line performance. You talk about waiting for a Quad core as well, that is something that Intel, again, already has on the market at a consumer level....and really there is not a lot of use for it; current and next gen games are just now getting into using both cores of that of a dual core CPU -- which is what, 3 or 4 years after dual core CPUs were released (as a mainstream component)?

Obviously you are an AMD fanboy which is fine and dandy -- but you have to be realistic about the performance comparisions -- especially when giving advice to others as they might not be fanboys of either but just wanting a rig with a lot of performance (intel) or a budget rig (AMD).

EDIT:
P.S. If it makes you feel better I am arguing for intel but have an Opty 165 in my system -- just trying to show that I am not completely intel biased
Offline arkeneaver  
#12 Posted : Sunday, April 8, 2007 8:35:06 AM(UTC)
arkeneaver


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/31/2006(UTC)
Posts: 107
Location: United Kingdom

hold ur tongue there m8... i have looked at benchmarks... and in all fairness... the only real time intel storms over AMD is when they test the big boys. FX60 and the e6700 etc. Lower down, there really isnt much in it. the e6300 just about outruns the amd 4200. But then.. the 4200 is half the price... hmm strange dont you think...especialy when you go off and say that the e6300 can take out the 4800, which i know, is a load of balony. Sure you can overclock the intels chips far further.. but so?

In the pcmark tests.. the e6300 performs a little lower then the amd 4600. Yet the amd 4600 is still quite abit cheaper. at 80 pound, while the 6300 is 110 pound.

In most of the tests the 4200 competes really well against the e6300, but the 3800 is still a little far behind. the e6400 is about the same performance level as the amd 5000, yet the 5000 is still cheaper then the e6400. After that, intel owns all. But what i really wanted to concentrate on is the cheaper chips.

In gaming situations, the amd 4200 only strays from the e6300 by about 10 frames per second. But the 4600 beats the e6300 in nearly every game. These games are: FEAR, call of duty 2, doom3 etc. Its thrustrating to see people making assumptions, perhaps from others comments or from biased tests.

I think you are getting too caught up with the higher chips like the 6700 etc. AMD cant compete with thoughs chips, i cant argue with that, but they can most certainly compete against intels cpu's on a bugdet.


To set you straight on quad cores too. Vista is a multi-threaded operating system, thus, even though programs may not be multi-threaded, will use all the cores in a cpu. This does not just mean 2, it means alot more then 2...8 infact. Multi-threading is here mate, vista is it, and in 2008 itll be bog standered. AMD are releasing an 8 core cpu by the end of this year, by the end of 2008 it will most certainly be needed. Technology is advancing quicker and quicker. In 2 years we have accomplished more then the past decade (in component terms anyway).

Not meaning to be rude, but intels version of the quad core is rubbish, all it is 2 dual cores stuck together. Its an offense to call it a quad core, even though it is on one piece of silicon. Read up on barcelona, it might suprise you.

o and one more thing...dual cores have been out for about a year... not 4... quad-cores have not been released... i do not consider 2 dual core cpu's on one peice of silicon a quad core cpu.
new games like supreme commander, STALKER and crysis support multi-threading. multiple cores does not mean just 2, but a hell of alot more then 2... technology is a little ahead of games, but trust me, when directx 10 is used more frequently, say end of this year, games will have caught up with quad-core technology. Its not as far behind as u think. Vista was talked about 4 years ago, and directx 10 was being used at the same time. It takes about 4 years to create a game engine anyway, why in the hell would microsoft release vista if no manufacturer was not prepared for it? Give it a year, and itll be fine
Offline ice91785  
#13 Posted : Monday, April 9, 2007 10:26:38 AM(UTC)
ice91785


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/21/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,598
Man
Location: Minnesota, United States

I see nothing as what you said to be rude buddy, don't worry....we simply have different opinions on the matter I suppose and well I do agree with some of your points -- namely vista and multicore support. I also do agree with you that Barcelona will be a nice answer to the Core 2 release but the problem with AMD's side is that they could have used Barcelona about 3 months ago or so as they are losing/have lost SOOO much ground that they gained on intel with S754/S939 and the A64 release.........

Anyway, i guess the best we can do here is agree to disagree on many points -- everyone has a right to their own opinion and I respect yours. BUT!!! this has gotten quite a bit off-topic so I would like to apologize to shocktech for hijacking his thread. And on that note, Shocktech I would like to second that you will probably want a slightly larger PSU for your system (around 500W and for sure around ~35A on your 12V rails.) and your x2 3800 should get you by just fine for now. Most games are more RAM intensive than CPU instensive anyway so I would make sure if you are an avid gamer to grab yourself 2GB for sure (Granted this was started like 2 months ago but I hope it helps ya out anyway)
Offline arkeneaver  
#14 Posted : Monday, April 9, 2007 11:41:05 AM(UTC)
arkeneaver


Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/31/2006(UTC)
Posts: 107
Location: United Kingdom

lol...im gald we cleared that up

AMD should have released barcelona and the R600 for that matyter, a while ago, it would of helped so much. But i guess they wanted to improve drivers or something. Getting 4 independant cores to work together, then suddenly work independantly is hard work. Plus.. while one core is active, the rest can be litteraly shut down. Which is really something, it means an 80% increase in power efficiancy.

Ice is right in saying that games are now more RAM intensive...this goes for video RAM and system RAM. A good gpu and 2gb of RAM will get you far. But with motherboards which can support 125gb of RAM only looming round the corner should give you an idea on how far directx 10 can be pushed .

I agree with ice that your CPU will get you a little further. Try and keep it until barcelona is released and then you might want to consider upgrading. AMD dual cores will be cut in price dramatically...or so i hope thats when im upgrading If their not then ill just say "the hell with it" and buy myself a barcelona, worthy of the name "quad-core". i still think they should increase the L3 cache to 4mb instead of 2mb... but hey... its a brand new architecture, theres nothing but time....
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.