Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gamers say "There's No point to conroe" - Page 2

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 12, 2006 9:39:35 PM

Quote:
well once vista comes out wont alot of people not even want the nvidia 7 series cards because of directx 10. When the directx 10 come out theyll blow the directx9 cards out of the water.


yes, and $1000 cpu's will still not be need for gaming 8)

yeah 1000$ now but in the future it will be cheaper and it will be required. The tech is always moving foreward and always will ! I never discourage people from buying the 1000$ CPU's if they want them thats there buisness.

Best comparison I have personal experience with is doing a call for some old man who had RoadRunner.... said "I use it to check my email" I didnt say "hey thats pointless dial up would be 75% cheaper and be just as good" I just corrected his issue and went on with my day :) 
August 12, 2006 9:41:19 PM

Maybe we should start a sticky called "How to recommend responsibly" 8)
August 12, 2006 9:41:41 PM

Quote:
yes, i understand that, but in that time (12-18 months), we will have better cheaper chips. Now if someone buys a $1000 chip now, in 18 months it probably won't be as good as a mid-low range chip then. By buying a cheaper($200) chip now, then in a year -18 moths buy another $200 chip, you'll be ahead, and have been no worse for wear in between. Thats also my point about people always recommending conroe. It probably won't be a upgradeable as AM2, and thats why you'll need a $1000 chip to last far enough. With AM2 you'll be able to get a good cheap chip now, then drop in a K8L chip in a year 18 months, for half the price of an x6800 now :wink:


But how does that help the people who cant wait? Im not talking about those who lack patience, but those who have an actual need. Some people have to upgrade now. I have this discussion all the time with people at work who ask me about upgrading/building/buying systems. I always tell them, wait as long as you can. Sooner or later though, they cant wait any more and have to buy. Prices are always going to fall, relativily speaking, but that true with many retail consumer items.

This year has been the first time there were no significant CPU price drops from Jan to June. The X2 3800 hovered at $289 to $292 for six months. I've never seen a CPU hold its retail price that long. Some Athlon XP CPU and mobo prices had actally gone up. The only reason AMD and retailers droped the A64 & X2 prices was in response to Conroe. . We're in a price war right now, so waiting, even a week may save cash, but sooner or later, you're going to have to buy.

As for AM2 being more upgradable than Conroe, I doubt it. AM2 is already 1/2 to 1/3 of the way through its life cycle. Its Uarch is near its peak in terms of how much more performance AMD can squeak out of it, while Conroe is still in its infancy. AMD needs to come up with something new pretty quick or find themselves relegated to the low performance bargain processor catagory. On the other hand, I would not be suprised to see Intel releaseing factory 4GHz Core 2's next year. Its just a matter of life cycle timing.

Right now, IMO, the best route to go is to buy the at the high end of the price/performance CPU curve (C2D 6600) and short change the videocard.


Peace
Related resources
August 12, 2006 9:45:10 PM

Quote:
well once vista comes out wont alot of people not even want the nvidia 7 series cards because of directx 10. When the directx 10 come out theyll blow the directx9 cards out of the water.


yes, and $1000 cpu's will still not be need for gaming 8)

yeah 1000$ now but in the future it will be cheaper and it will be required. The tech is always moving foreward and always will ! I never discourage people from buying the 1000$ CPU's if they want them thats there buisness.

Best comparison I have personal experience with is doing a call for some old man who had RoadRunner.... said "I use it to check my email" I didnt say "hey thats pointless dial up would be 75% cheaper and be just as good" I just corrected his issue and went on with my day :) 

But thats why you don't buy $1000 chips. You buy a mid range chip now, then another when you need it.

Thats my point, that man. You probably know you shoulda told him to get dial-up, but you didn't care too much and let him get it. Thats the way people act on this forum. :(  :wink:
August 12, 2006 9:46:21 PM

Quote:

well in that situation the person should tell them that they don't need an x6800 and an e6600 will do the same for half the price. If the person stil wants it, you've done your best, but they can't be helped. But if they do downgrade slightly, you've saved them lots if money.


That's just it. You can sway someone from going top of the line, but if they want it, and have the means to get it, why should anyone stop them from spending their own money.

You saved them money? Why? It's not your money. If you give your opinion, and they say, "Well, I'm going with X6800 or FX-62.", who cares after that if you can save them money? I mean, really? If someone is willing to drop that much on a CPU, you think they will run a single ATI 9600 PRO? No way. They are mostly likely going SLI/Crossfire setup with tons of RAM, and Raptor drives. Why? Again, it's their decision to spend, not yours or mine.

I don't see why you think forum posters need to be financial advisors for people who really don't care for opinions on how they spend their money. If they want a setup in a certain budget, of course top of the line is probably out of the question. But if someone asks, "What would be your dream system?", you'd actually put just a mid-range CPU in that spot?
August 12, 2006 9:46:48 PM

I guess you have to admit that:

choices
fanboyism
budget
lifestyles

are all components of making a hard sound wise choice.

Now if we all win the lottery... it wouldn't be that hard. :lol: 
August 12, 2006 9:50:46 PM

Quote:
yes, i understand that, but in that time (12-18 months), we will have better cheaper chips. Now if someone buys a $1000 chip now, in 18 months it probably won't be as good as a mid-low range chip then. By buying a cheaper($200) chip now, then in a year -18 moths buy another $200 chip, you'll be ahead, and have been no worse for wear in between. Thats also my point about people always recommending conroe. It probably won't be a upgradeable as AM2, and thats why you'll need a $1000 chip to last far enough. With AM2 you'll be able to get a good cheap chip now, then drop in a K8L chip in a year 18 months, for half the price of an x6800 now :wink:


But how does that help the people who cant wait? Im not talking about those who lack patience, but those who have an actual need. It doesnt Some people have to upgrade now. I have this discussion all the time with people at work who ask me about upgrading/building/buying systems. I always tell them, wait as long as you can. Sooner or later though, they cant wait any more and have to buy. Prices are always going to fall, relativily speaking, but that true with many retail consumer items.

This year has been the first time there were no significant CPU price drops from Jan to June. The X2 3800 hovered at $289 to $292 for six months. I've never seen a CPU hold its retail price that long. Some Athlon XP CPU and mobo prices had actally gone up. The only reason AMD and retailers droped the A64 & X2 prices was in response to Conroe. . We're in a price war right now, so waiting, even a week may save cash, but sooner or later, you're going to have to buy.

As for AM2 being more upgradable than Conroe, I doubt it. AM2 is already 1/2 to 1/3 of the way through its life cycle. Its Uarch is near its peak in terms of how much more performance AMD can squeak out of it, while Conroe is still in its infancy. AMD needs to come up with something new pretty quick or find themselves relegated to the low performance bargain processor catagory. On the other hand, I would not be suprised to see Intel releaseing factory 4GHz Core 2's next year. Its just a matter of life cycle timing.

Right now, IMO, the best route to go is to buy the at the high end of the price/performance CPU curve (C2D 6600) and short change the videocard.


Peace

even if they can't wait it won't do them any good to buy a $1000 chip. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the chip is bad. I'msaying it isn't worth the price for gaming when you can get cloe with an e6300 or 4200. As for upgradability, AM2 boards will be compatible with AM3(K8L) boards for a long time. Also maybe i read you wrong but did you say get a good cpu, and get a crappy gpu?
August 12, 2006 9:53:15 PM

For those ready to jump to Vista, yes.
Why spend tons of cash on a video card if DX10 compatiblity is questionable.

Get a high/mid-range CPU, a GPU that won't kill a yearly budget, and you can always upgrade when Vista requirements are set.
August 12, 2006 9:55:08 PM

Quote:

well in that situation the person should tell them that they don't need an x6800 and an e6600 will do the same for half the price. If the person stil wants it, you've done your best, but they can't be helped. But if they do downgrade slightly, you've saved them lots if money.


That's just it. You can sway someone from going top of the line, but if they want it, and have the means to get it, why should anyone stop them from spending their own money.

You saved them money? Why? It's not your money. If you give your opinion, and they say, "Well, I'm going with X6800 or FX-62.", who cares after that if you can save them money? I mean, really? If someone is willing to drop that much on a CPU, you think they will run a single ATI 9600 PRO? No way. They are mostly likely going SLI/Crossfire setup with tons of RAM, and Raptor drives. Why? Again, it's their decision to spend, not yours or mine.

I don't see why you think forum posters need to be financial advisors for people who really don't care for opinions on how they spend their money. If they want a setup in a certain budget, of course top of the line is probably out of the question. But if someone asks, "What would be your dream system?", you'd actually put just a mid-range CPU in that spot?

Thats what i said. If you tell em what they need and they don't listen, who cares. Actually i do think people who recommend should be in some way a "financial advisor", but only to a point. Also, of course a "dream system" wouldn't have a midrange cpu in it... but thats why its a dream, without money to worry about. :wink:
August 12, 2006 10:02:35 PM

Quote:

well in that situation the person should tell them that they don't need an x6800 and an e6600 will do the same for half the price. If the person stil wants it, you've done your best, but they can't be helped. But if they do downgrade slightly, you've saved them lots if money.


That's just it. You can sway someone from going top of the line, but if they want it, and have the means to get it, why should anyone stop them from spending their own money.

You saved them money? Why? It's not your money. If you give your opinion, and they say, "Well, I'm going with X6800 or FX-62.", who cares after that if you can save them money? I mean, really? If someone is willing to drop that much on a CPU, you think they will run a single ATI 9600 PRO? No way. They are mostly likely going SLI/Crossfire setup with tons of RAM, and Raptor drives. Why? Again, it's their decision to spend, not yours or mine.

I don't see why you think forum posters need to be financial advisors for people who really don't care for opinions on how they spend their money. If they want a setup in a certain budget, of course top of the line is probably out of the question. But if someone asks, "What would be your dream system?", you'd actually put just a mid-range CPU in that spot?

Thats what i said. If you tell em what they need and they don't listen, who cares. Actually i do think people who recommend should be in some way a "financial advisor", but only to a point. Also, of course a "dream system" wouldn't have a midrange cpu in it... but thats why its a dream, without money to worry about. :wink:

And most people who recommend, are looking at price/performance, except for the die-hards, fanbois, etc.

I usually recommend a CPU that is a lower model than listed, unless they believe it would hinder their expected performance. The only ones that try hard, not so much for top of the line, but for something that they think is good for them, and not what the person is asking about. I mean, you see someone with an AM2 setup, and you might get the usual, "Why not go Conroe" response. Same with any C2D setup, there's usually a "Why not get AMD xxxx+, it's cheaper, and blah, blah".

It's not so much a price/performance reason, just a typcial "this company is better than that, cause I like them better" reason.
August 12, 2006 10:09:14 PM

That may be true, but i like AMD but i am also getting AM2 because it is upgradeable. If C2D was like that, i wouldn't hesitate to go intel. It would be painfull, but that would be mitigated by the performance :p 

actually now that i think about it(almost got sucked in by conroe hype), i would still get the 4600 EE because its the best price/performance/power consumption chip for me 8)
August 12, 2006 10:11:26 PM

Quote:

core 2 might have better performance price, but they start out expensive.

you mean... E6300 @ $230, that can outperforms X2 4400+ @ roughly the same price?

Quote:

They do have better performance per watt, but the AMD EE versions use very little power (less than C2D)

yet, they perform a lot worse than Core 2. unless you're building a MODT, power consumption is not your primary factor in chooseing processors.

Quote:

How bout telling them not to spend $2000 and save their money. Even if they want to you could recomend a e6600 or 6700 for much less.

and that still doesn't support this thread's topic, "there is no point in going for Core 2". you're just telling me that it is better to recommend mid-range processors.

Quote:
your bogus :p 

i guess the words speak for themselves.
August 12, 2006 10:17:28 PM

Quote:

core 2 might have better performance price, but they start out expensive.

you mean... E6300 @ $230, that can outperforms X2 4400+ @ roughly the same price?

Quote:

They do have better performance per watt, but the AMD EE versions use very little power (less than C2D)

yet, they perform a lot worse than Core 2. unless you're building a MODT, power consumption is not your primary factor in chooseing processors.

Quote:

How bout telling them not to spend $2000 and save their money. Even if they want to you could recomend a e6600 or 6700 for much less.

and that still doesn't support this thread's topic, "there is no point in going for Core 2". you're just telling me that it is better to recommend mid-range processors.

Quote:
your bogus :p 

i guess the words speak for themselves.

The e6300 is expensive as the lowest of a series. Contray to what YOU might think, power consumption is a concern for many people. The name of the thread is what people said. Since conroe is charactreized as high end, it serves the same purpose. And yes... you ARE bogus.
August 12, 2006 10:17:51 PM

Quote:
yes, i understand that, but in that time (12-18 months), we will have better cheaper chips. Now if someone buys a $1000 chip now, in 18 months it probably won't be as good as a mid-low range chip then. By buying a cheaper($200) chip now, then in a year -18 moths buy another $200 chip, you'll be ahead, and have been no worse for wear in between. Thats also my point about people always recommending conroe. It probably won't be a upgradeable as AM2, and thats why you'll need a $1000 chip to last far enough. With AM2 you'll be able to get a good cheap chip now, then drop in a K8L chip in a year 18 months, for half the price of an x6800 now :wink:


But how does that help the people who cant wait? Im not talking about those who lack patience, but those who have an actual need. It doesnt Some people have to upgrade now. I have this discussion all the time with people at work who ask me about upgrading/building/buying systems. I always tell them, wait as long as you can. Sooner or later though, they cant wait any more and have to buy. Prices are always going to fall, relativily speaking, but that true with many retail consumer items.

This year has been the first time there were no significant CPU price drops from Jan to June. The X2 3800 hovered at $289 to $292 for six months. I've never seen a CPU hold its retail price that long. Some Athlon XP CPU and mobo prices had actally gone up. The only reason AMD and retailers droped the A64 & X2 prices was in response to Conroe. . We're in a price war right now, so waiting, even a week may save cash, but sooner or later, you're going to have to buy.

As for AM2 being more upgradable than Conroe, I doubt it. AM2 is already 1/2 to 1/3 of the way through its life cycle. Its Uarch is near its peak in terms of how much more performance AMD can squeak out of it, while Conroe is still in its infancy. AMD needs to come up with something new pretty quick or find themselves relegated to the low performance bargain processor catagory. On the other hand, I would not be suprised to see Intel releaseing factory 4GHz Core 2's next year. Its just a matter of life cycle timing.

Right now, IMO, the best route to go is to buy the at the high end of the price/performance CPU curve (C2D 6600) and short change the videocard.


Peace

even if they can't wait it won't do them any good to buy a $1000 chip. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the chip is bad. I'msaying it isn't worth the price for gaming when you can get cloe with an e6300 or 4200. As for upgradability, AM2 boards will be compatible with AM3(K8L) boards for a long time. Also maybe i read you wrong but did you say get a good cpu, and get a crappy gpu?


No, no $1000 chip is ever worth it. Go look at the THG interactive CPU charts. The price-performance ratio is way off. Ive always been willing to give to trade 100 FPS for 89FPS, or a minute of video processing/3D rendering time to save $600 bucks. I would imagine a lot of people are. Some people are not. Usually the people who are not willing to settle for a little less performance can afford not to, so this thread reaaly doenst apply, as they will simply upgrade the next time the next "latest-greatest" is available. The $1000 CPUs are targeted at them. For the (IMO) average consumer however, (those who fall into the 2-4 year upgrade catagory) its a different story. Again, if they have to upgrade now, and want a system that will be viable 2-3 years down the road, buying a cheap CPU isnt going to cut it.

On the GPU question, Yes, thats exactly what I meant, IF someone has to buy right now, and I mean right now. DX 10 is right around the corner. Save the $$ get a:
http://www.compuvest.com/Search.jsp?Search=100586&advsi...
or similar just to get the system functional, then wait the 2-3 months for the nex gen GPUs


Peace
August 12, 2006 10:24:06 PM

If someone can only upgrade every 2-4 years because of money issues, then buy cheaper is still a good option because then they could upgrade more often, and be ahead of where they would be at the end of the 4 years, at half the price. As for the vid card thats a choice. I'm getting an x1900xt or maybe x1950xt now, then in about a year and a half or less upgrade that, and the 4600 EE to a K8L. That seems to be the best thing right now to do.
August 12, 2006 10:25:14 PM

Quote:
yes, i understand that, but in that time (12-18 months), we will have better cheaper chips. Now if someone buys a $1000 chip now, in 18 months it probably won't be as good as a mid-low range chip then. By buying a cheaper($200) chip now, then in a year -18 moths buy another $200 chip, you'll be ahead, and have been no worse for wear in between. Thats also my point about people always recommending conroe. It probably won't be a upgradeable as AM2, and thats why you'll need a $1000 chip to last far enough. With AM2 you'll be able to get a good cheap chip now, then drop in a K8L chip in a year 18 months, for half the price of an x6800 now :wink:


But how does that help the people who cant wait? Im not talking about those who lack patience, but those who have an actual need. It doesnt Some people have to upgrade now. I have this discussion all the time with people at work who ask me about upgrading/building/buying systems. I always tell them, wait as long as you can. Sooner or later though, they cant wait any more and have to buy. Prices are always going to fall, relativily speaking, but that true with many retail consumer items.

This year has been the first time there were no significant CPU price drops from Jan to June. The X2 3800 hovered at $289 to $292 for six months. I've never seen a CPU hold its retail price that long. Some Athlon XP CPU and mobo prices had actally gone up. The only reason AMD and retailers droped the A64 & X2 prices was in response to Conroe. . We're in a price war right now, so waiting, even a week may save cash, but sooner or later, you're going to have to buy.

As for AM2 being more upgradable than Conroe, I doubt it. AM2 is already 1/2 to 1/3 of the way through its life cycle. Its Uarch is near its peak in terms of how much more performance AMD can squeak out of it, while Conroe is still in its infancy. AMD needs to come up with something new pretty quick or find themselves relegated to the low performance bargain processor catagory. On the other hand, I would not be suprised to see Intel releaseing factory 4GHz Core 2's next year. Its just a matter of life cycle timing.

Right now, IMO, the best route to go is to buy the at the high end of the price/performance CPU curve (C2D 6600) and short change the videocard.


Peace

even if they can't wait it won't do them any good to buy a $1000 chip. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the chip is bad. I'msaying it isn't worth the price for gaming when you can get cloe with an e6300 or 4200. As for upgradability, AM2 boards will be compatible with AM3(K8L) boards for a long time. Also maybe i read you wrong but did you say get a good cpu, and get a crappy gpu?


Ah, you see, you dont know of the dx66/100-pentrium debacle.
Intel swore up and down, Pentium 1 was going to be a drop in upgrade to the old 386 boards. Everyone who bought into that got bit in the arse. As for AM3 being a drop in upgrade to the AM2 boards, I wont beleive it until its here, The same as I refused to accept the Core 2 hoopla till it was on the market. Call me a skeptic

Honestly, I doubt AM3 will be a drop in upgrade. I know AMD is claiming this, and that the socket will remain the same, but Im almost willing to bet its going to need a new chipset, which means a new mobo. JMO


Peace
August 12, 2006 10:26:17 PM

Anyway i'm gonna go eat now, so if i don't respond, its not because your right and i don't have an answer, its because my mouth is full :p  :wink:
August 12, 2006 10:28:28 PM

I spend my money on video cards
August 12, 2006 10:30:37 PM

Quote:
Honestly, I doubt AM3 will be a drop in upgrade. I know AMD is claiming this, and that the socket will remain the same, but Im almost willing to bet its going to need a new chipset, which means a new mobo. JMO


AM3 is on spec for using DDR3, so even if it is a "drop in", it won't be utilized to its full potential. Also, by the time AM3 hits, PCI-e 2.0 will be out, you'll need a new motherboard for top-end graphics cards.
August 12, 2006 10:30:51 PM

Well i guess with upgradeability you have to look at reputaions and have a little faith. Intel did that, but AMD has always had a rep for being upgrdae friendly. If i had to guess who is more likely to screw you with a chipset change it would be intel :p 
August 12, 2006 10:34:44 PM

Quote:
Honestly, I doubt AM3 will be a drop in upgrade. I know AMD is claiming this, and that the socket will remain the same, but Im almost willing to bet its going to need a new chipset, which means a new mobo. JMO


AM3 is on spec for using DDR3, so even if it is a "drop in", it won't be utilized to its full potential. Also, by the time AM3 hits, PCI-e 2.0 will be out, you'll need a new motherboard for top-end graphics cards.

Its still better than intel's upgrade path which is very short.
August 12, 2006 10:36:59 PM

Quote:
I've been looking in some other forums from different places, and unlike here where conroe is all the craze, they couldn't care less. Its not just conroe they don't care about, its almost any high end processor. The common theme is why pay for an x6800 or FX-62 when i can get a x2 3800, 4200, or e6300 and get the same results in the game or close to it for a fifth of the price? They also acknowledge how faster cpu's help people with CAD, and stuff like that, but since most people don't do that there is no point. It seems to me that people on this forum are somewhat "misguided" for recommending such highend cpu's for gaming, or even buying them themselves. I also think that conroe, although not the case here, could benifit AMD buy lowering prices and giving more exposure of AMD to normal people. I know you will also say that the e6300 can overclock past an FX-62, but in response to that, people arn't willing to pay the higher price for that cpu, nor the very expensive motherboard required to overclock like that. They also seem to like the idea of the new EE chips from AMD, and disregard C2D's slighty higher power consumption, and performance. AMD has also respinded to this with the new x2 3600, and i think it will catch on. Anway i think this will benifit AMD because by the time we need chips like the x6800 and FX-62 to run all games on high settings, AMD will have the crown back and will maybe have all price points covered, plus additional exposure to normal consumers. I see 30% marketshare in the not too distant furture 8)


1st what forums are you talking about that don't recommend conroes its not(AT)(h)(oc)(vr)(e) forums . You must mean the AMD forums correct?
2nd I think the title should say "I say "there's no point to conroe"
3rd after reading through some of your responses you even give the e6300 as an alternitive, last time i checked the e6300 was a conroe but i havent checked in a while.
4th taking into acount 1,2,3 the title should read " I say "there is no point to a $800 conroe for games
August 12, 2006 10:40:18 PM

Quote:
Its still better than intel's upgrade path which is very short.


I agree. Trying to keep up with Intel's chipset releases can be difficult. Hopefully, they have taken care of this. I guess we'll see when Kentsfield comes out. :? :looks hopefully:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2006 10:42:43 PM

I couldn't care less about your post.

1. No one gives a damn about ANOTHER bloody post regarding this problem. There are enough threads already.

2. Learn how to use paragraphs. Please.
August 12, 2006 10:59:05 PM

your first post to start this thread does not even describe the people on this forum?

New system builders(noobs) are always told to but an athlon x2 OR low end conroe.... I never see people on this forum telling people to buy and athlon FX / or high end conroe? They make a point in telling people they are better off spending their money on a better video card if they want to play games....

If people were steering people to the high end your rant would be correct....
August 12, 2006 11:02:34 PM

Quote:
Having just moved up from an Ahlon XP3200+ Barton with 1gb OEM Ram and the 6800GT to a Core 2 X6800 with 2GB Corsair Pro PC6400 and an ATI X1900XTX I can say it was very worthwhile. I now spawn so far ahead of anyone else in BF2 that I get the jets and choppers for the first time! I can run CoD2, BF2, and DDO all at max. Was it the Conroe or the combination? Probably the combination, but as a guy who just spent $2500 to game, IT WAS WORTH E VERY PENNY! I have no regrets and y'all can eat my contrails...

It's my Corvette...

My Rig:
Core 2 Duo X6800 Conroe (Stock Clock for Now)
Intel D975XBXLRK
Thermaltake Big Typhoon HSF
2 GB Corsair Pro PC6400 4-4-4-15
74GB 10k Raptor
ATI X1900XTX
SB Audigy 2 ZS
NEC DVD OEM Burners (x2)
Ultra X-Finity 600w SLi Certified PS
Gigabyte 3D Aurora Case


Thats great, but you would have been just as happy with a 5000+ or e6600. I bet if you changed it you wouldn't noticve a difference :wink: yes he would, its called minimum frame rate.
August 12, 2006 11:06:15 PM

Quote:
A e6600... WHERE... oh here, but hey they're marked up 25%

25% from what, from the 1000 cpu's tray price?!

(Anyway you don't need to answer... I don't want to try to educate an uneducated teenager...)

are you denying that they are marked up? Take a look at newegg

Ive got news for you, companies like to make profit. Thats why they mark up, and if u dont like 25% go somewhere else besides newegg.
August 12, 2006 11:14:59 PM

Quote:
That may be true, but i like AMD but i am also getting AM2 because it is upgradeable. If C2D was like that, i wouldn't hesitate to go intel. It would be painfull, but that would be mitigated by the performance :p 

actually now that i think about it(almost got sucked in by conroe hype), i would still get the 4600 EE because its the best price/performance/power consumption chip for me 8)


Why are you so sure that socket 775 isnt upgradeable? why would you care about power if you have a desktop? Why would it be painful for you to switch if it was upgradable and had the best performance?
August 12, 2006 11:38:55 PM

:roll: First, minimum fps that a prgram tells you won't matter if you can't SEE the difference.

Second, most retailers are gauging people right now, not just newegg, that was an example. And by the time the price come down we'll have newer chips, so conroe's reign will be short lived and superficial

Third, I'm not certain, but based on reputations, i'd pick AMD for upgradability. You may not care about power bills, but some people do. It would be painful because like i said i don't like intel, but i'm not gonna rip myself off in the name of AMD. :roll:
August 13, 2006 12:07:34 AM

hmmm, what I do is I decide how much money I am willing to spend on a part, and then buy the best part for said money, with a little bit of wiggle room in those predetermined prices so I can compensate for the cost of things that are compatible and such.

It looks to me that around $300 is the sweet spot for CPU's right now, so I ask myself, "what is the best ~$300 CPU? A couple months ago it was the 3800 X 2, now it is the E6600, it is really that simple. From what I can tell, a few weeks ago, there was a sudden change, you could get 40% more speed and 40% less power consumption for the same money, or something close to those amounts according to the articles that are all over the place right now. My situation was that I had a laptop from 2002, had a 1.6 Ghz P4, nvidia geforce4, 20 gig HD, all in, the thing costed me about $1600. But it died on me a couple months ago and I have been in dire need to upgrade ever since.

So I budget 1600 dollars for a computer, including everything, the monitor and cables and mice, all of it because I am upgrading from a deceased laptop.

So you try to find the "sweet spots" for how much value you get for your money, and right now it is about 300 for cpus, 100 for hard drives, 150 for 2gigs of ram(depending on your desire to OC), almost 400 for lcd's, and if you are a gamer you cheap out on everything in order to save more for the gpu. But there is some severe diminishing returns for your money with video cards, I would dare say you are paying to much for games for anything more than 300 on a vid card. That said I just bought a 7600gt because I know that somewhere down the road it will get alot cheaper to play oblivion and I still haven't finished morrowind yet.

I am not much of a gamer though, when I stress out a computer it tends to be doing alot of signal processing type stuff. I play with noise alot so I can't stand those hair dryer video cards and I feel like I can never get enough cpu. I will still fire up a game on occasion but I guess it isn't my priority, my priority is a machine that is somewhat quiet so I can record sound near it, and isn't rediculously handicapped at anything I might get the sudden urge to try. So things like the e6600, 7600gt, 320 gig hard drives, and 2 gigs of mid range ram that is better than "value ram" yet not the tight tiing stuff that is hard to find, that just seems the perfect fit.

But I guess if all you care about is getting your max performance in games then you would do a cheap cpu and a rediculously expensive video card, whatever floast your boat, but I really think alot of us have projects that stress a computr out in different ways, the botlenecks I run into the most are disk speed, CPU, and IO latency(especially with audio).
August 13, 2006 12:39:26 AM

Quote:
If someone can only upgrade every 2-4 years because of money issues, then buy cheaper is still a good option because then they could upgrade more often, and be ahead of where they would be at the end of the 4 years, at half the price. As for the vid card thats a choice. I'm getting an x1900xt or maybe x1950xt now, then in about a year and a half or less upgrade that, and the 4600 EE to a K8L. That seems to be the best thing right now to do.



Ahh, but that is the enthusiast's perspective. You are neglecting the fact that there a lot of people who don’t want to upgrade every six months. Imagine buying a car and bringing it back to the dealer every six months to put a new motor in. That would be a colossal pain in the arse. Now, tearing the motor down yourself to port match the heads, or put a set of high compression pistons in etc, that’s a hobby (unless your racing professionally). Some people are into this, but not most. Personally, I don’t want to upgrade every six months. Long term, based on your theory, it is a waste of money. If you by a mid range CPU costing $300 every six months for 2 years, versus a one time buy of a $1000 chip, your losing money. Yes, you keep your performance level up, but, if as you stated in your first post, the high end CPUs are a waste, then there’s no point to upgrading every six months anyway.

If tweaking your system is a hobby, that’s fine. Hobbies cost money, so your going to spend it any way, and what you are getting in turn is not really performance, but relaxation, satisfaction, pleasure etc, that which a hobby gives an individual. But you have to remember, that computers themselves as a "hobby" are limited to the minority. For the majority of people, computers are a tool, whether its word processing, communicating (e-mail) graphics or even gaming etc. Just as a baseball bat is a "tool" of baseball, so is a computer a "tool" of video gaming. These people don’t want to fiddle every six months. Hell, they don’t even want to fiddle every 2-4 years. They want to make a one time investment. They don’t even want to have to buy another system ever again. The reasons they do replace their systems vary. For some, it’s when software outgrows their systems capabilities, for others they may believe they have to buy a new computer because their hard drive is "filled up" (its true). These people don’t care what’s inside, as long as what’s inside is going to last more than six months. That’s just the ways it is.

For them, the most performance they can buy at the time is best. I’ve been building systems since 95. Believe me, I would much rather have made a one time investment of $3000 in 1995, than $600-$1200 every 2 years. A one time buy is not realistic due to improvements in software and hardware, but it’s the way I feel. I don’t like spending money or time tinkering with a system, I want to use it. I hate having to dig through MS's registry blocking, altering or deleting the crap in there. I hate spending time researching how to do it, and what little secret surprise’s and security hazards MS has hidden in their dam OS's. I hate upgrading drivers. I hate configuring software. To me, all of this is wasted time, but it has to be done. I could easily find other more pleasurable ways (for me) to spend my time. I fall into the category of user, not enthusiast. Most people do

Peace
August 13, 2006 1:11:42 AM

Quote:
I've been looking in some other forums from different places, and unlike here where conroe is all the craze, they couldn't care less. Its not just conroe they don't care about, its almost any high end processor. The common theme is why pay for an x6800 or FX-62 when i can get a x2 3800, 4200, or e6300 and get the same results in the game or close to it for a fifth of the price? They also acknowledge how faster cpu's help people with CAD, and stuff like that, but since most people don't do that there is no point. It seems to me that people on this forum are somewhat "misguided" for recommending such highend cpu's for gaming, or even buying them themselves. I also think that conroe, although not the case here, could benifit AMD buy lowering prices and giving more exposure of AMD to normal people. I know you will also say that the e6300 can overclock past an FX-62, but in response to that, people arn't willing to pay the higher price for that cpu, nor the very expensive motherboard required to overclock like that. They also seem to like the idea of the new EE chips from AMD, and disregard C2D's slighty higher power consumption, and performance. AMD has also respinded to this with the new x2 3600, and i think it will catch on. Anway i think this will benifit AMD because by the time we need chips like the x6800 and FX-62 to run all games on high settings, AMD will have the crown back and will maybe have all price points covered, plus additional exposure to normal consumers. I see 30% marketshare in the not too distant furture 8)


Pointless thread of the day.

So lets see, you went to another forum where you met a bunch of douchebags and you wanted to come back here and tell us all about it. And now you're trying to convince an enthusiasts forum that we all don't need the best cpu we can afford. Nice story.
August 13, 2006 1:48:35 AM

Quote:
No one is forcing anyone to buy the stuff they want/need/wish for.

If someone asks, "Hey, what's the best system for a serious hardcore gaming rig with a budget of $2000?", are you seriously going to tell them to get a mid-range CPU? Nope. Mid-range video card? Nope.

Just cause people want to spend their own money on the fastest, quickest, and most powerful things out there, doesn't mean anyone giving their opinion is misguided. Please. Misguided would be telling someone to get a fast CPU, and a crappy video card, cause the CPU will handle everything. That's misguided.

Oh, and I love the bias at the end...wonder what started this whole "Gamers say 'There's NO point to conroe'". Yeah, right.

You don't like intel, that's fine. But stop YOUR misguiding info.


I've acualy seen a C2D be worse then FX-62 in DOOM 3, its in the newest PC magazine, better in everything else
August 13, 2006 1:49:58 AM

Quote:
:roll: First, minimum fps that a prgram tells you won't matter if you can't SEE the difference.

Second, most retailers are gauging people right now, not just newegg, that was an example. And by the time the price come down we'll have newer chips, so conroe's reign will be short lived and superficial

Third, I'm not certain, but based on reputations, i'd pick AMD for upgradability. You may not care about power bills, but some people do. It would be painful because like i said i don't like intel, but i'm not gonna rip myself off in the name of AMD. :roll:


Minimum fps matters. To make it simple - if my rig gives me 100fps and yours creaks out 1fps, I will kill you many more times than you kill me. Obviously that's too simple, and the higher the framerate the other guy gets it's a diminishing return for me. But I'm still going to build the most pc I can afford.

As for the power consumption, the Conroe kicks AMD's butt in that regard. And I like AMD.
August 13, 2006 2:18:21 AM

Quote:
No one is forcing anyone to buy the stuff they want/need/wish for.

If someone asks, "Hey, what's the best system for a serious hardcore gaming rig with a budget of $2000?", are you seriously going to tell them to get a mid-range CPU? Nope. Mid-range video card? Nope.

Just cause people want to spend their own money on the fastest, quickest, and most powerful things out there, doesn't mean anyone giving their opinion is misguided. Please. Misguided would be telling someone to get a fast CPU, and a crappy video card, cause the CPU will handle everything. That's misguided.

Oh, and I love the bias at the end...wonder what started this whole "Gamers say 'There's NO point to conroe'". Yeah, right.

You don't like intel, that's fine. But stop YOUR misguiding info.


I've acualy seen a C2D be worse then FX-62 in DOOM 3, its in the newest PC magazine, better in everything else

Not graph I see:

PC Magazine Article
August 13, 2006 2:58:55 AM

:roll:

1. For god sakes learn to use paragraphs.

2. No-one cares about rant topics.
August 13, 2006 3:00:24 AM

SoD, you're the biggest tosser I've ever come across.
August 13, 2006 4:15:16 AM

keep recommending those $1000 cpus, these multi-billion dollar companies need the investment $'s to keep coming in so cheapskates like me can get yesterdays latest & greatest gear for cheap when new products are introduced

personally i'd rather invest a grand into other things rather then a piece of silicon that'll be worthless in 3-5 years. $1000 PIII 450mhz anyone ?
August 13, 2006 4:16:00 AM

Quote:
:roll: First, minimum fps that a prgram tells you won't matter if you can't SEE the difference.

Second, most retailers are gauging people right now, not just newegg, that was an example. And by the time the price come down we'll have newer chips, so conroe's reign will be short lived and superficial

Third, I'm not certain, but based on reputations, i'd pick AMD for upgradability. You may not care about power bills, but some people do. It would be painful because like i said i don't like intel, but i'm not gonna rip myself off in the name of AMD. :roll:



Oh god, I love how AMD fanboys switch up their arguments.
Lets see, because C2Ds outperform K8s in performance and beat the hell out of them in power consumptions, AMD fanboys decide to use the EE CPUs as their icon. No one complained about power consumption 2-3months ago.

Oh no! My FX-55 is going to make me go bankrupt because I'm not using EE CPUs which can save me an extra $10 a year!
August 13, 2006 4:19:53 AM

Quote:
your average gamer dont know **** about pcs and they hardly go to tech websites

look at some of those dumbasses


Nice. I felt my vocabulary evaporating while I was reading that sites forum.

Peace
August 13, 2006 4:22:40 AM

Quote:
:roll: First, minimum fps that a prgram tells you won't matter if you can't SEE the difference.


You are correct on this to a small degree. It has been proven already on other sites that the C2D has a much higher fps on games then any current AMD CPU out to date. What I mean by this is the C2D doesn't have a large drop in fps in todays games like the current AMD systems do. An example of this is lets say you have around 80 FPS at any given time, you run into a large fire fight, with the k8's you drop down to around 40 FPS. This has some to do with the GPU, but really it's based on the CPU. Reason for this is because a lot more information is being downloaded and needs to be processed by the CPU first, then comes into play the physic of the game. The higher the details and the more things going on the more the CPU comes into play. Now if you are using the C2D you might not notice it or you will get a little drop in FPS maybe down to 60 FPS. A drop from 80 to 60 isn't that bad, but a drop from 80 to 40 is death to most players. Because half your fps is gone at that moment and your reaction time therefor cut in half. That half of the moment can mean the world to that person at that moment.

Now is this very important. Most sites only show you the adv FPS. Just recently toms started showing on some Benchmarks the all together FPS. Where go up and down during game play. C2D shows major improvement in this field. And if you don't think this matters then you aren't a gamer. Small gamers don't care, but people like me that play in large leagues like CAL this is very, very important for online playing in FPS. I need a constant FPS that don't dip to deeply in FPS in large battles and the C2D provides that very well. Most of my clan is switching to C2D before x-mas. Yes GPU's matter a lot, but don't say CPU's don't mean anything. Because a hard core gamer will tell you the truth, that a very good CPU is needed just as much as a very good GPU is needed for gaming. And any new game out today needs both of them. You get a low end CPU and you'll notice it in game play for sure. Most of these Benchmarks aren't done while playing online with other people play and the more people that play on the same server the better the CPU you need.

You say you've been reading what gamers have been saying, but I think you haven't even read what a daily gamer or hard core gamer needs. Go to the CAL, CPL and TWL forums and you'll hear from real gamers not the kiddie ones that don't know anything about gaming and what is needed from there computer to keep a good playing field for them to see what is happening in the game. Sure a good system doesn't make the gamer. But it sure does help him/her keep up with what is happening in the game.

This thread has nothing to do with gamers, just your point of view.

Tho I must say this, there are some smart gamers out there, but 80% of the gamers out there don't know anything other then how to turn on a computer and play a game.
August 13, 2006 4:23:32 AM

Quote:
your average gamer dont know **** about pcs and they hardly go to tech websites

look at some of those dumbasses


Nice. I felt my vocabulary evaporating while I was reading that sites forum.

Peace

its always me to save the day...
August 13, 2006 4:37:50 AM

Quote:
:roll: First, minimum fps that a prgram tells you won't matter if you can't SEE the difference.


You are correct on this to a small degree. It has been proven already on other sites that the C2D has a much higher fps on games then any current AMD CPU out to date. What I mean by this is the C2D doesn't have a large drop in fps in todays games like the current AMD systems do. An example of this is lets say you have around 80 FPS at any given time, you run into a large fire fight, with the k8's you drop down to around 40 FPS. This has some to do with the GPU, but really it's based on the CPU. Reason for this is because a lot more information is being downloaded and needs to be processed by the CPU first, then comes into play the physic of the game. The higher the details and the more things going on the more the CPU comes into play. Now if you are using the C2D you might not notice it or you will get a little drop in FPS maybe down to 60 FPS. A drop from 80 to 60 isn't that bad, but a drop from 80 to 40 is death to most players. Because half your fps is gone at that moment and your reaction time therefor cut in half. That half of the moment can mean the world to that person at that moment.

Now is this very important. Most sites only show you the adv FPS. Just recently toms started showing on some Benchmarks the all together FPS. Where go up and down during game play. C2D shows major improvement in this field. And if you don't think this matters then you aren't a gamer. Small gamers don't care, but people like me that play in large leagues like CAL this is very, very important for online playing in FPS. I need a constant FPS that don't dip to deeply in FPS in large battles and the C2D provides that very well. Most of my clan is switching to C2D before x-mas. Yes GPU's matter a lot, but don't say CPU's don't mean anything. Because a hard core gamer will tell you the truth, that a very good CPU is needed just as much as a very good GPU is needed for gaming. And any new game out today needs both of them. You get a low end CPU and you'll notice it in game play for sure. Most of these Benchmarks aren't done while playing online with other people play and the more people that play on the same server the better the CPU you need.

You say you've been reading what gamers have been saying, but I think you haven't even read what a daily gamer or hard core gamer needs. Go to the CAL, CPL and TWL forums and you'll hear from real gamers not the kiddie ones that don't know anything about gaming and what is needed from there computer to keep a good playing field for them to see what is happening in the game. Sure a good system doesn't make the gamer. But it sure does help him/her keep up with what is happening in the game.

This thread has nothing to do with gamers, just your point of view.

Tho I must say this, there are some smart gamers out there, but 80% of the gamers out there don't know anything other then how to turn on a computer and play a game.


Well said.

Peace
August 13, 2006 5:19:27 AM

I'm going to try to say what most of the people in here have already said. It's an enthusiast market. It's all about having the latest and greatest regardless of whether it'll be outdated or not. I mean around my house there are exotic car collectors. Now this is WAY more enthusiast than an X6800 but to give you an idea there's a guy who has a ferrari enzo not too far from my house, actually there's 2 guys. Then it gets better because some guy just bought a bugatti veyron not too long ago too. THAT'S 1.3 MILLION! And they already have a car that kills it's 0-60 of 2.5 seconds (the barabus TKR is 1.67 seconds). Ok somewhat bad analogy, but the point here is that people have the money and are willing to pay prime for cutting edge technology for the moment.
August 13, 2006 6:11:43 AM

Final thoughts: You guys have worn me down :wink: and the only reason i'm on now is because i can't sleep. :cry: 

1: Knowledgeable people on this forum shouldn't be so quick to recommend high priced chips, and should ALWAYS advise the person, no matter how much they say they will spend, on what they need. After that, if they lsoe money too bad.

2: People here should recognize AM2 as an option not a failure.

3: People here should also realize that what we buy doesn't matter in the big picture, and what the normal "dumbass" gamers buy does. You may think a 4200 is crap, but most people who buy pc's from futureshop or mdg, or something have either a PD805 or x2 3800 s939 as an option, so they would be very pleased with that as a lower priced chip, or even an e6300, which is a little high but i'll include to avoid more flaming. :p 

4: AMD's new position with normal "dumbass" gamers is the reason i think they will benefit from conroe.

5: I learned to type in paragraphs! 8)
August 13, 2006 6:20:09 AM

My 2 Cents!

Conroe is the best CPU performance improvement in the passed 5-6 years. Not only does it perform better than and AMD or older Intel cores, it OverClocks very well. A overclock 6300/6400 will out perform FX-62 in most benchmarks. I'm not a Intel nor and AMD fanboy; I try to use best technology currently offered.

Personally, I have not been so excited about a computer build with new CPU since AMD Athlon 800MHz slot cpu. Praise is due to Intel for releasing this kick-butt cpu!!!
August 13, 2006 6:27:34 AM

Quote:
My 2 Cents!

Conroe is the best CPU performance improvement in the passed 5-6 years. Not only does it perform better than and AMD or older Intel cores, it OverClocks very well. A overclock 6300/6400 will out perform FX-62 in most benchmarks. I'm not a Intel nor and AMD fanboy; I try to use best technology currently offered.

Personally, I have not been so excited about a computer build with new CPU since AMD Athlon 800MHz slot cpu. Praise is due to Intel for releasing this kick-butt cpu!!!


They make me mad though since they coulda done something similar a long time ago, but decided to sit back and watch profits roll in instead, until AMD was getting too good and they had to curtail it. Intel doesn't try and thats why i don't like them among other reasons. AMD tries, and is good to their customers. Last post here...NO MORE FOR ME :wink:
August 13, 2006 6:36:30 AM

Intel is a very large company and it takes time to turn a ship that big! We as consumers have to thank AMD for making good products. If AMD did not exisit and Intel had no competition, we might not of had a product like Conroe that we can enjoy today.
August 13, 2006 6:41:27 AM

Quote:
Final thoughts: You guys have worn me down :wink: and the only reason i'm on now is because i can't sleep. :cry: 
Go to bed. Its past your bedtime :wink: Just kidding


Quote:
1: Knowledgeable people on this forum shouldn't be so quick to recommend high priced chips, and should ALWAYS advise the person, no matter how much they say they will spend, on what they need. After that, if they lsoe money too bad.


A lot of people are not recomending high priced chips. They are recomending the best price/performance chips, which, for the moment are the E6600s.

Quote:
2: People here should recognize AM2 as an option not a failure


AM2 chips are not failures, they are great chips, but they do not offer the performance of the comparable Core 2s. Core 2 is a newer design, still in the infancy of its life cycle and therefore still has (theoretically) more performance to be extracted than the older AM2 design. Being older doesn’t make AM2 bad, just older and closer to the peak of the performance that can be extracted from it. Its still a fine option, and a great way to upgrade if you have a AM2 based system. If your starting from scratch, its a way to go, just not the optimal way to go at this time.

Quote:
3: People here should also realize that what we buy doesn't matter in the big picture, and what the normal "dumbass" gamers buy does. You may think a 4200 is crap, but most people who buy pc's from futureshop or mdg, or something have either a PD805 or x2 3800 s939 as an option, so they would be very pleased with that as a lower priced chip, or even an e6300, which is a little high but i'll include to avoid more flaming. :p 


Corvetteguy, you have to realize, people here, yourself included, have more CPU knowledge than the "normal" person. "Normal" people don’t even know what a 805, X2 or 939 are. At most, they have heard the names Intel and AMD. Thats all they know, plus whatever BS the salesturds at BestBuy, CompUSA etc have fed them.

Quote:
4: AMD's new position with normal "dumbass" gamers is the reason i think they will benefit from conroe

Ya lost me on this one

Quote:
5: I learned to type in paragraphs! 8)

Action Man will be pleased, and we won’t have to see the keyboard again

Peace
    • Previous
    • 2 / 6
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!