The AMD FX series is the gaming chip, which until the FX60 were single core chips. The Dual-Core chips were designed to do multi-tasking and not to specifically for games, but at the cuurent moment there isn't a game out there that a Dual-Core or an FX couldn't handle. From what I understand Asus is one of the best for Motherbaords although I have an MSI.
Don't know specific date, but at least not for a while. They are also ditching the Netburst architecture wich isn't really effective if you look a the current chips. So that scan from the magazine is basicly saying "we know it's better but we're gonna compare and bash anyway"
Aight, thx for the comments everyone. One last thing in this thread, I am getting an AMD, so no more Intel posts. Now, I was thinking of getting something of the X2 series, possibly the Athlon 64 X2 4400. Any comments on this? One of my friends said the 64 bit was unnecessary, and that I could drop the price by opting for a lower cpu, like maybe a 4200. However, he also said get one with a 1MB cache, and from newegg.com, the 4400 is the cheapest with a 1MB cache. I haven't check anywhere else, so, anyone have anything to say about this? Any suggestions on what I should get from AMD. Lastly, there are mixed comments about Dual Core is bad for gaming. Some say it is bad, some say its not. I need more info on this. Thx all.
I've played tons of games on my dual core cpu, they all ran fine... a quick review of what I've played, and this is just since january xP BF2, Quake 4, HL2, BFME:2, WarRock, Halo, UT04, many more So, what matters if your pricerange really.. You can get a x2 3800 for 300 USD, then OC it to 4200 x2 power easy, and even a 4600x2 on decent air cooling. Do you plan on OCing at all? Cuz Opertons are good for that.. and they are all 64-bit, and yea, thats a good thing so idk what ur friend is saying.. 3800, 4200 and 4600's have 2x512mb cache, which is like 1mb I guess. The 4400's, and 4800's have 2x1mb cache. I dont think it will be that much of a difference but its always good to have.
Your friend is right about getting the 1MB cache processor. About gaming, people say to get a single core for gaming. This is because current generation games can't make use of the second core, although in the next few years I suspect that games will be multi threaded and use both cores.
It all depends on what you plan to do the most with your system. If you're looking for a gaming PC, then I would say that you may want to consider looking at the AMD FX Series processors. The FX60 is the best one out right now, which is Dual-Core and the FX series was made with the intention of gaming. Although if you're looking for a multi-tasking computer, then the processor you want is X2 chip. The X2 can play games just fine, but the games out now aren't advanced enough to really test the X2 or FX chips. For your video card I recommend EVGA, they're at the top at the moment. I would suggest something from the 6000 series or 7000 series depending on how much you're willing to spend. The 7800 GTX is probably the best, although it is kinda expensive and depending on whether you want to do dual displays or not would determine whether you should get just one or two and run SLI. Also, you may want to check out mwave.com as well they can have some rather good deals sometimes.
Whats your budget? If you have none, I'd go for an AMD Athlon FX60 Merged Post: Also, if you want an X2, I'd go with a 4200+ and overclock it to the clock speed of the 4600+.
ok, this thread is obviously getting one sided with AMD, lemme just point out the intel's processor's CAN PLAY ----ING GAMES. i got a pentium d 820 2.8ghz with EM64T (if i ever feel like downloading xp pro 64). i can run plently of programs along side with warcraft/and or counter strike. my motherboard doesnt have the greatest north bridge, so im sure if i went with a $100 motherboard it would be even better.
Yeah, it all comes down to your budget. A year ago when I built my system, it cost me roughly $2200. That was for: AMD FX55 MSI Platinum 4 SLI EVGA 6600GT I believe I got OCZ 2GB memory 250 & 80 GB HD Then of coarse all the little extras and stuff As you can tell alot has changed, a new system with the upgraded parts that I'm lacking would cost about $2500 or so (roughly), unless there is a cheaper site out there that I don't know about or use.
mmm, think about that again. proportionalize cash for preformance. the +3800 x2 has dropped from $350 to $300 (was $350 at the time i bought my $245 pentium d, had it been $300 at the time of my upgrades, i would have gotten that.) the +3800 is definally a good processor with a good price tag.
If you read a god damn thing, you'd know he said hew as getting an AMD and didn't want to hear anything else about Intel. Shut the ---- up noob. Ownt bitch. Merged Post: I wouldn't think about that again ^_^
Obviously, all the people with more knowledge about CPU's arent being one sided, just telling the truth. We can admit Intel is better for encoding but thats it. Gaming goes to AMD no challenge. We never said Intel cant play games, they just dont compare with AMD's processors. Enough with Intell now, I just wanted to make it clear, you are wrong.
I recommend an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe (or Premium). If you're going for gaming setup then SLI is a very good extra. That way you can combine 2 identical cards into a powerfull GFX setup. As for the graphics card, I recommend an XFX 6800 GS XXX Edition (standard overclocked), or if you want a GForce 7 series card you should wait a bit till the 7900 comes out and the 7800 cards get a price drop.
