CPU/Mobo 5600+ vs E6300 , at stock .. a must see ..

Status
Not open for further replies.
deathvirus_me said:
Asus 7900GS 256 MB are under 10k's now ... so that's even more affordable ...
Click to expand...

Really I did'nt knew that now he can go for XFX 7900GT instead of XFX 7900GS!! or say AMD X2 3600+ with XFX 8800GTS 320 Graphics Card. lolz....... This config is sure to take the pants off of Intel C2D E6300 even after Overclocking. Can Intel justify this point??
 
AMD should survive to break the Monopoly Market of Intel!! Similarly Linux for Windows, Openoffice.org 2.2 against MS Office 2007 and Mozilla Firefox against Internet Explorer 7.0. For years they have dominated the Market through Monopoly Business, therefore we should support the Rival!! Think What would have happened if there would have no AMD; prhaps there would have been no C2D people would have got Intel Pentium D for as high as 8k. They would fooled people of Developing Countries more easily. Think Guys Think!!!
 
arnov said:
Times have changed dude, along with a good CPU a Good GPU also matters a lot!! I have seen in newegg.com people are coupling AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ with XFX 8800GTS 320MB, don't you say that's an intelligent move with tight budget.
Click to expand...

well, i never disagreed to tht fact..obviously a gpu is of paramount importance when it comes to graphical rendering in games..much more than the cpu..i was only commenting on hotstuff's statement tht Intel shud be the choice for non gamers..the c2ds coupled with a good gfx card can outperform any comparable x2 with the same gfx card...

I got a 4200+ at home as well with my 6300..both have the same gfx card..(7600 GS) ...there is nothing extraordinary about its performance..the E6300 performs better than it in all my rendering work..i can easily see tht the E6300 calculates the global illumination photons in my lighting scenes in maya faster than the 4200+...both are running on stock...and both the systems have 1 gb mem..

Only thing tht holds for the X2 is for someone on a tight budget,needing a good config... else its c2d all the way...

arnov said:
Really I did'nt knew that now he can go for XFX 7900GT instead of XFX 7900GS!! or say AMD X2 3600+ with XFX 8800GTS 320 Graphics Card. lolz....... This config is sure to take the pants off of Intel C2D E6300 even after Overclocking. Can Intel justify this point??
Click to expand...

Give the E6300 the same 8800 GTS...check it at stock and at overclocked speeds and compare the benchies with tht of the 3600+ rig and tell me whose pants come off..dude, i even finding the 4200+ inferior to the E6300 in my everyday work...its just outrageous to think tht the 3600+ will outperform the E6300 at oclocked speeds..:no:

No hard feelings,bro..we are just talkin..:)
 
@ Private Ryan:

Apply some common sense and then comment on it, i had equalized the budget and then commented on that. Well If you have no limit in budget, then SKY is the Limit!!

Should I explain it to you:

Config 1:

Intel C2D E6300 @ 3.0 GHz (8.9k)

Gigabyte GA-P965-DS3 Motherboard (9.5)

ASUS Star Cooler Ice Heatsink (2.5k)

XFX 7600GS 256 MB GPU (5.5k)

Total: Rs. 26,400/-

Config:

AMD X2 3600+ @ 1.8 GHz (3.6k)

ASUS M2N-MX Motherboard (3.6k)

XFX 8800GTS GPU 320 MB (19.5k)

Total: Rs. 26,700/-

Now tell me which one makes more sense!!

Otherwise I would have said to go in for Intel's Quad Core and what not else!!
 
true and u can push the X2 3600 a fair bit without an exp mobo I guess...

@privateRyan

you still dont get it? :huh:
 
Arnov said:
@ Private Ryan:

Apply some common sense and then comment on it, i had equalized the budget and then commented on that. Well If you have no limit in budget, then SKY is the Limit!!
Click to expand...

Well, what u are sayin is completely from a price point of view..i agree on tht..but what irked me was this statement..

This config is sure to take the pants off of Intel C2D E6300 even after Overclocking. Can Intel justify this point??
Click to expand...

I dont see the value for money point of view in this comment..its just seemed like u are saying tht a 3600+ can out perform a C2D e6300 even after ocing..with no explanations about why u feel so..or the price point..thts why i commented.. no hard feelings again..to each his own..

Vij said:
@privateRyan

you still dont get it?
Click to expand...

Well i do get it bro...funky already explained it to me earlier..what i dont get is the constant bantering of a brand even when they are delivering the goodies..

I dont understand why being a rebel always makes sense..

Earlier it was the performance tht made AMD click...well tht is understood..i too loved AMD then for what it offered..but now though it isnt a performance champ anymore, there has to be something to make it look better..and so the fanboys have come up with the new price is to performance justification...i never favored fanboism of any brand..then AMD was the king of performance..now its INTEL..why is it so hard to digest for ppl?? And using both the systems at home, i can see the today the E6300 is better off than the 4200+..i was not talkin of the price is to performance..it was pure performance... price is different things to different ppl..i think the 4200+ was a waste of money..i shud have got another E6300 or a E6400...tht way i wud have considered money well spent..even if i had to pay a bit more..

Well, i think my justifications are from a different point of view to ye all ppl.. and i know tht i'm stirring up a hornet's nest here... so i'll desist from giving any more explanations.. to each his own...:)
 
Actually X2s were waste of money till jan 07 or so.

With brisbane and price cuts the picture is different.

At stock obviously 6300 will thump 4200+. Its 5600+ onwards where AMD is matching Intel @ stock speeds.

But that does not change fact that you can build a comparable system spending 8-9K less if you go for AMD.

And simply Intel is not offering anything there for last month or so.

There is still no real competition for 6600, 6700 and Intel Quads.

But those are out of budget for many buyers. Thats the whole point.

And simply Intel could have slashed prices of 4300s right down to earth to the 3600+ levels. They could easily do that and still make profit. But still they havent done that.

In India that means loss of market share for intel over next few months to be honest.
 
ya even i m thinking why the new amd chipset with so much feature available so cheap..ofcourse they too would b making profit...so does intel....atlest they should have reduced the price of e4300 below 5k range...but see they still protecting the the shit pent d.......

but ya 3600+ oc at extreme will match e6300....but i guess for time being its better to stick with 3600+and wait for time for 5600+ price to fall more
 
I think its a gr8 point that the review made that price is a very important factor when some1 buys something... You always have a best technology, but its the best buy that matters...

When any1 (funky puts it correctly) says E6600, E6700 or Intel Quads are better, we r only comparing a set of points here!! In this case we were comparing (Intel/AMD or home-use x86 processors)... But mind you these are by no means the "BEST" processors out there!! "BEST" can be so much different on the application, platform, price, easy of use, availability etc...

Earlier it was the performance tht made AMD click...well tht is understood..i too loved AMD then for what it offered..but now though it isnt a performance champ anymore, there has to be something to make it look better..and so the fanboys have come up with the new price is to performance justification...i never favored fanboism of any brand..then AMD was the king of performance..now its INTEL..why is it so hard to digest for ppl?? And using both the systems at home, i can see the today the E6300 is better off than the 4200+..i was not talkin of the price is to performance..it was pure performance... price is different things to different ppl..i think the 4200+ was a waste of money..i shud have got another E6300 or a E6400...tht way i wud have considered money well spent..even if i had to pay a bit more..
Click to expand...

One important parameter for comparison is "price", which is IMO the most popular scheme of comparisons... and I dont see the point why any1 may call such comparisons as fanboyism or unreal manipulations or anything else!!
 
Well defending Intel on TE aint gonna work.. AMD fanbois are abundant on TE.

Anyways, for the price, the X2's are good. But the C2D's are GREAT.

Id rather have a E4300 @ 3 Ghz (like I do) and a 7600GT (comparable to an X800XL) rather than a X2 3600 @ 2.6 ghz with an 8800GTS.

Most games I play are CPU intensive. Specially CS Source. The source engine is really CPU intensive.

The PC with a 3600+ even @ 2.8-3 Ghz and an 8800GTS 320mb will have its FPS dropping to 50-60, just becoz of the CPU.

The PC with the E4300 @ 3 Ghz and a 7600GT, the FPS wont drop below 100. Even with the 7600GT.

In CS, 100FPS is very important due to the Update packets being sent to and fro the Server. 100 are required for proper gameplay.

Ofcourse, Id rather have a Penryn 3.33 Ghz Quad, with an R650! :D :P....
 
Aditya said:
Well defending Intel on TE aint gonna work.. AMD fanbois are abundant on TE.

Anyways, for the price, the X2's are good. But the C2D's are GREAT.

Id rather have a E4300 @ 3 Ghz (like I do) and a 7600GT (comparable to an X800XL) rather than a X2 3600 @ 2.6 ghz with an 8800GTS.

Most games I play are CPU intensive. Specially CS Source. The source engine is really CPU intensive.

The PC with a 3600+ even @ 2.8-3 Ghz and an 8800GTS 320mb will have its FPS dropping to 50-60, just becoz of the CPU.

The PC with the E4300 @ 3 Ghz and a 7600GT, the FPS wont drop below 100. Even with the 7600GT.

In CS, 100FPS is very important due to the Update packets being sent to and fro the Server. 100 are required for proper gameplay.

Ofcourse, Id rather have a Penryn 3.33 Ghz Quad, with an R650! :D :P....
Click to expand...
Any stats to back that up ?:)
 
Eh..

Ill post screenshots of me playing CSS?

Ive been playing CSS since more than a year now.

Karan, has played for as long as me. Hes played on a AMD 3000+ @ 2.8 Ghz, and then with a 165 @ 2.9 Ghz, with the FPS still dropping to 60.

If theres a chart with minimum fps in HL2 in some benchmark, youll notice a vast difference..
 
Well adi, CSS is purely based on CPU. And I havent seen FPS below 100 in CSS from the age of 3000+ @ stock speed with 6800s.

There are plenty of benchies of HL2 and CSS with X2 3600+ and mind you min FPS does not go that low unless you are going 1680x1050 range.

Dont forget X2s are not as lame as Pentium Ds :P

CSS is not that hardware demanding to be honest.

But play games like FEAR, Oblivion, Vegas, Prey and having 8800GTS will make huge difference to gameplay over having E4300.

And see the economics.

X2 3600+ +Biostar TA690G + 1GB DDR2 667 will cost you 10.5k

A good mobo like P5B Dlx alone for Conroe costs that much.

DO the math.
 
Dont refer to benchmarks on this one. They show the average FPS. Not the minimum.

Also, I dont think a 165 @ 2.9 Ghz is lame either. But FPS still managed to drop.

Well, Im just saying it from my point of view.

Like I said, AMD's for the price are good. but Intels are great :P.
 
Its undeniable re that clock per clock any C2D is better than any X2.

And yes Intel is great in performance.

But will people buy it just because its great or just because its Intel??

No, specially not here in India these days with finally dealers and customers opening up to AMD.

I will never settle for anything less than the best mid budget processor for my main system.

Same is not the case with everyone. And i do wonder sometimes that i have blown way too much money on my main system :P

AMD makes great b**ch rig and also great VFM system for average user at the moment. ;)
 
Talkin abt CS Source.....i get 78-82 fps on my p4 2.53 ghz, 768 mb SD RAM..geforce4 420 GO :rofl: ......toshiba laptop.

cheers.
 
LOL... 100fps in css is easy even with a slightly oc'ed 3000+ forget dual core :P. Looks like u are comparing an amd64 with a pentium d :P. Wake up dude CSS can be played on any decent machine released in the last 2 yrs :P, barring netburst.
 
Aditya said:
Well defending Intel on TE aint gonna work.. AMD fanbois are abundant on TE.

Anyways, for the price, the X2's are good. But the C2D's are GREAT.
Click to expand...

1 should not be the fan boy of any brand today we all know that C2D is the best deal if you have the buck while on the other side X2's provide the best VFM...These giants clashes always benefit the user as user get better option in lesser money :)... The debate over Intel & AMD will not end .. "Survival of the fittest" this too is applied here now Intel is leading with their C2D's while AMD is also preparing for K8L/K10 architecture based processor.One can't imagine what will be the future but it will surely for an instance will change the way we compute ;)...So its better you stop guys we all know that today there is no processor that can match the irresistible frequency pumping power like C2D while either there is no other processor which can provide the best bang for the buck[or sara paise wasul]like X2's .....
 
Lol..

4get it.

Ive played the game on machines ranging from Pentium D's to Pentium 4s' to Athlon XP's to Athlon 64s to an Athlon X2... The FPS has dropped in an Intense fight (say 3-4 enemies) to 50 in every one of those systems.
 
We already have a few people who own the x2's 3600+ and 3800+

Why not simply ask the fps they get with their respective gfx cards

That will tell it all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom