Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Can u guys tell me if this cpu is good?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Computer
  • Processors
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
January 18, 2007 4:25:54 PM

Im working on buying new parts for my computer but im not sure what to get.
I have a budget and this is the max im paying for a processor... is this worth my money???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103627

and will that run smoothly with

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131568

Ty guys i really need help

More about : guys cpu good

January 18, 2007 4:35:59 PM

Good choice. Don't forget that OEM version comes without CPU cooler and its warranty is shorter.

It will run smoothly with that mainboard.
January 18, 2007 5:06:08 PM

Quote:
Im working on buying new parts for my computer but im not sure what to get.
I have a budget and this is the max im paying for a processor... is this worth my money???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103627

and will that run smoothly with

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131568

Ty guys i really need help


What is your alternative to AMD - Intel Core 2 Duo (E6300)?
What are your limitations - DDR400 memory or so?
Related resources
January 18, 2007 5:08:06 PM

It was a good choice before core2duo came out from intel. My vote goes for an e6300 and a gigabyte 965p-s3. More performance per dollar, more overclockability, more of an upgrade path. Just my $0.02.
January 18, 2007 5:12:46 PM

Exactly. The only am2 that actually makes sense right now is the x2 3800 because they are dirt cheap dual cores.

I would take the e4300 instead of the e6300 though.
January 18, 2007 5:18:45 PM

Quote:
Exactly. The only am2 that actually makes sense right now is the x2 3800 because they are dirt cheap dual cores.

I would take the e4300 instead of the e6300 though.



BS.
X2 still gets superior frame rates. Comparing is not necessary. If the SW runs fast, it runs fast. The Turion X2 Im typing tis on is plenty fast and is even slightly slower than A64 X2.

I would never have and never did tell someone NetBurst "wasn't worth buying."

Can you say biased against AMD?
January 18, 2007 5:22:37 PM

True the e4300 looks promising. I haven't seen them in stock anywhere yet. I'd also like to see if they overclock well in masse. I've seen the recent reviews showing certain samples to be excellent overclockers, but I'd like to see it on the forumz. I heard they are to be released next week sometime. Surprisingly, the links the OP posted are for s939 parts, so I assume he's wanting to reuse RAM or something. Not worth it in my opinion.
January 18, 2007 5:27:52 PM

There is clearly nothing wrong with the Athlon64 X2s. They are excellent processors and were the best until the Core2Duos came out. The intels now just simply offer more performance per dollar with more overclockability to boot.
January 18, 2007 5:33:16 PM

If you're buying a new motherboard why not buy a AM2 or LGA775 motherboard? Why go with the dead socket?
January 18, 2007 5:34:34 PM

Quote:
Im working on buying new parts for my computer but im not sure what to get.
I have a budget and this is the max im paying for a processor... is this worth my money???

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103627

and will that run smoothly with

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131568

Ty guys i really need help



That will be fine, though most people will tell you to ONLY buy Core 2. If I were going t buy AMD I wuld get Windsor instead of Toledo as it has an upgrade to quad core later this year.
January 18, 2007 5:58:47 PM

You can get an e4300 at Tiger Direct now for 179.99.
January 18, 2007 6:03:26 PM

Quote:
There is clearly nothing wrong with the Athlon64 X2s. They are excellent processors and were the best until the Core2Duos came out. The intels now just simply offer more performance per dollar with more overclockability to boot.



I have used both for different things and I have yet to see the diffference.
January 18, 2007 6:12:49 PM

If I were you I'd go with a C2D. If you are firmly based in the AMD camp though, at least get a socket AM2 CPU/motherboard. S939 is dead. You need AM2 to run DDR2 memory.
DDR2 is the most common atm. Also buying the (older) S939 will limit your upgradability for the future.
January 18, 2007 6:13:52 PM

Quote:
There is clearly nothing wrong with the Athlon64 X2s. They are excellent processors and were the best until the Core2Duos came out. The intels now just simply offer more performance per dollar with more overclockability to boot.



I have used both for different things and I have yet to see the diffference.

You can more easily SEE the difference if you LOOK at benchmarks. You know, those little things that tell you how well something performs?

<insert lame car analogy>
January 18, 2007 6:24:27 PM

Quote:

BS.
X2 still gets superior frame rates. Comparing is not necessary. If the SW runs fast, it runs fast. The Turion X2 Im typing tis on is plenty fast and is even slightly slower than A64 X2.

What happens when a next-gen game comes out that does need the additional CPU muscle? Recommending a user buy something because it's "good enough for now" is almost insulting to his/her intelligence when there is a better alternative available right now at a comparable price point. I've owned an AMD X2 since July of '05 and it's worked perfectly... possibly the most stable system I've ever owned and that's with a hefty overclock... and although I know it was the right thing to buy back then, there's no way in hell I'd buy an X2 at this point. Sorry AMD (and BM)
January 18, 2007 6:45:17 PM

Please tell me what the current specs of your system are?
January 18, 2007 6:58:43 PM

Of course choosing an upgrade path for another person is difficult.

If he has a decent 939 system then I would tell him not to upgrade it. Wait a year and then get a new system. I would first look at over clocking or tweaking my current system for more power.

I know all of you love those core2 overclockers. But remember the 4300 is still a budget chip no matter how you look at it. And to get those high over clocks you need to spend some mean green to have a stable system. Those mother boards are $250.00. If I were going to spend all that money I would go for a high end chip.
January 18, 2007 7:21:45 PM

Quote:
And to get those high over clocks you need to spend some mean green to have a stable system. Those mother boards are $250.00.


That's not quite correct. The great thing about the e4300 is that it will not require a highly overclocked fsb with its 9x multiplier, and therefore won't stress the chipset even as much as the e6xxx chips. From what I've read, a simple $108 gigabyte S3 would get you to 3.0ghz without a problem.
January 18, 2007 7:23:50 PM

Quote:
You can more easily SEE the difference if you LOOK at benchmarks. You know, those little things that tell you how well something performs?


Ditto
January 18, 2007 8:09:04 PM

Now that is good to know.

:wink:
January 18, 2007 8:37:30 PM

Quote:
And to get those high over clocks you need to spend some mean green to have a stable system. Those mother boards are $250.00.


That's not quite correct. The great thing about the e4300 is that it will not require a highly overclocked fsb with its 9x multiplier, and therefore won't stress the chipset even as much as the e6xxx chips. From what I've read, a simple $108 gigabyte S3 would get you to 3.0ghz without a problem.

Finally someone explained that. I was scratchin' my head for a little while.
January 18, 2007 10:29:56 PM

Quote:
You can get an e4300 at Tiger Direct now for 179.99.

8O , Not the best choice; the AM2 4200+ performs better and is only around $160 while the X2 3800+ performs within 2% and is $120-130.
January 19, 2007 12:13:06 AM

Quote:

BS.


I will try to keep this civilized even though others will probably tell me not to waste my time.

First off, it´s not very nice to start a post with "BS" which stands for Bullshit as i understand it. If you can please elaborate what "BS" did i post?

Quote:

X2 still gets superior frame rates. Comparing is not necessary.


To clarify this statement i will summarize what i said:

In my reply i said that i would recommend the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 over the AMD64 x2 4200+.
You replied that the AMD64 x2 still gest superior frame rates.

This image was taken from AnandTech.



Further reading of different reviews have brought up the same results. You are free to verfy my findings and correct me if i am mistaken.

In contrast to your statement that a comparison is not needed i think it is needed indeed since we seem to disagree on this. Without statistics, benchmarks and other evidence there can´t be an objective argument.

Quote:

If the SW runs fast, it runs fast.

I think we agree on that.
"Fast" is very subjective though and left on its own its a worthless thing since for ordinary tasks all recent processors are "fast". Thus there is an iherent need to differenciate between the products and while some differences may be neglectable, others may not.

Quote:

The Turion X2 Im typing tis on is plenty fast and is even slightly slower than A64 X2.

This is a prime example for the lack of meaning in relative comparisons. While i´m not eager to see evidence of your statement, i will trust your judgement on this one, it carries no weight or information other than that the processor you are using is slower than some other processor. In fact it is lacking precision to a degree that it is even possible to prove the opposite of what you just said. Yet, that is not the essence of this thread and i understood what you ment to say, so i won´t argue about it.

Quote:

I would never have and never did tell someone NetBurst "wasn't worth buying."


Why not? It would´ve been good advice during the reign of Intels Netburst architecture since it was inferior to AMDs processor design.

Quote:

Can you say biased against AMD?

I am always eager to help, so here you go:

"Biased agains AMD"
January 19, 2007 12:16:42 AM

Quote:

That will be fine, though most people will tell you to ONLY buy Core 2. If I were going t buy AMD I wuld get Windsor instead of Toledo as it has an upgrade to quad core later this year.


May i ask how the "Windsor" will be upgraded to quad-core? If you ment to say that he should invest into am2, then that might be a valid statement since AMD seems to make Quad-Core processors available later this year. In that case he should maybe go for the cheapest x2 he can get since it´s only an intermediate processor.
January 19, 2007 12:19:17 AM

Quote:
You can get an e4300 at Tiger Direct now for 179.99.

8O , Not the best choice; the AM2 4200+ performs better and is only around $160 while the X2 3800+ performs within 2% and is $120-130.
You are probably correct. Since the e4300 just made it to the market it is still heavily overpriced. If general processor performance isn´t the main goal, i would suggest getting a x2 3800 anyway since its performance and price is still untouched by Intel.
January 19, 2007 12:58:57 AM

Good choice of processor.well worth the money.as someone else mentioned,there is also oem stuff you can get even cheaper.As for how it will perform on the asus board,well yes it will run just fine with that board.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
January 19, 2007 12:39:46 PM

Quote:
You can get an e4300 at Tiger Direct now for 179.99.

8O , Not the best choice; the AM2 4200+ performs better and is only around $160 while the X2 3800+ performs within 2% and is $120-130.
I wasn't commenting on performance, I was just replying to TurdBurglar who said he hadn't seen them in stock anywhere yet. :) 
January 19, 2007 1:12:29 PM

Thanks for the link by the way.
January 19, 2007 1:48:56 PM

The only thing I'd say is that I would avoid socket 939, and get the AM2, since it gives you a potential upgrade path down the road. Socket 939 is dead. The only reason I can think to get it is if you already have DDR RAM and don't want to shell out for DDR2 to replace it.
January 19, 2007 1:53:53 PM

if your current setup is with ddr1 do what im going to do next week. order the asrock 775dualvista and the e4300. keep your old ddr1 ram and overclock the e4300 to 2.9ghz (320fsb x9). that should be plenty of power to run anything. with that in mind it will only cost you no more than 300$ with a aftermarket HSF.
January 19, 2007 2:29:49 PM

Quote:
Exactly. The only am2 that actually makes sense right now is the x2 3800 because they are dirt cheap dual cores.

I would take the e4300 instead of the e6300 though.



BS.
X2 still gets superior frame rates. Comparing is not necessary. If the SW runs fast, it runs fast. The Turion X2 Im typing tis on is plenty fast and is even slightly slower than A64 X2.

I would never have and never did tell someone NetBurst "wasn't worth buying."

Can you say biased against AMD?

>> Can you say biased against AMD?

Thats funny from you. You're like the total AMD fanboi in all your posts.

>> X2 still gets superior frame rates
Against what? Face it, any E6xx Core2 leaves any AMD in its dust.
January 19, 2007 3:23:13 PM

Quote:
any E6xx Core2 leaves any AMD in its dust.

This is the only not 100% true statement in your reply; roughly 4400+ and above is better than the E6300 and 5000+ and above better than the E6400.