2)I spent $350 or so on my 4200+ X2.
- The cheapo Conroe 6300 beats it. :-\
Thanks anyway. Heh.
I really wish they averaged or median'd everything out to find which processors held the best overall. Combining scores over many benchmarks would be the best deteriming factor...but Toms wouldn't want to give ACTUAL price/performance ratios.
You rule. I can see that the switch over to AM2 with DDR2 doesn't provide any gain unless you're using DDR-800, and even then it's negligable. I already knew that the low end Core2Duo's pretty much match the lower AM2's and highest 939's in terms of stock perf. I've read the Conroe's OC better though, and they do outperform @ stock as well. I'm still trying to decide if it's worth upgrading my current systems, and when the best time to do it is. $500 is a lot for a chip when I can get a new one that beats it at such a low price. If AMD wanted to sell more 939 and AM2 processors at lower prices to compete with Core2Duo, they still could, provided they could still make a profit with the cut. They're trying to keep their prices high though and take a loss for the time being. Intel can easily outproduce them. They need prices on CPU's high, and Intel really hurt them by pricing their new chips so low. AMD expected Intel to take the lead, but probably not with such low prices. If only the two companies were more evenly matched. Intel would pretty much be a monopoly if AMD went under and would probably get sued like M$, so they need them, or to find another company that could compete in their place. They need a company that can compete, but not well. I think AMD scared Intel a bit with their aggressive tactics.
Can someone tell why the E6300 hasn't yet been benchmarked/displayed on the CPU charts? I want to compare an FX-60 to it. :-(
Well, now this is good to go ask Mark Raby and Mr. Wolfgang, who produce the charts.... evidently they have a E6400, but they are unable to figure out how to drop the multiplier by 1 (commonly avail. on a few enthusiast boards, namely the P5W DH -- which they have used in reviews ).
No they cannot publish the E6300 into the charts as this would take away even the low end 3800+ from competition.... This is the biggest complaint of most logical thinking forum members on the board.
Thats because the system is GPU limited in Oblivion at that point therefore no decent increase in performance would occur, if that same test were done at 800x600 on a cpu dependent game it would be a different story
Hey thanks. :-) Actually my 3000+ A64 is OC'd by nTune now, along with the 6150GPU NB, and the RAM. I honestly think that with a new video card THAT system is decent. I plan on getting a DX9 card for it eventually probably as prices get cheaper. Might upgrade to Vista on that system too. I just got an XBox 360 as well. Now I just need a gigabit switch to link everything together. By the end of next year I'll hopefully have an old Xbox, a new one, and 3 good comps. We'll see. I want a decent setup so I can host some kickass lan parties. :-P Might get a Wii too. The PS3 would be nice but... 8800GTX or FX-60 > PS3.
Not a problem ---- now, I personally want to stress --- while Intel did a great job with the new architecture, the release of C2D did not make your AMD chip go slower. You still have a good chip there overall.
Oh no, I'm well aware. :-) Like I said, my "Crappy little 3000+" as Jumping Jack would put it, is working fine on this comp. My other systems are a socket 478 P4 @ 2.2 and a 939 X2 4200+ which runs at 2.2 as well. This chip is stock at 1.8 but I have it pushing 2.2 as well.