🚀 go-pugleaf

-=Matt=- wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Not knowing much about CPUs these days (bring back the 386, 486 etc!), I'm a
> bit confused as to the various merits of the new COre 2 Duo. To put it
> simply, I'm hoping to be able to play games like Bioshock or Crysis on a new
> rig. I know the system I'm looking at is fairly basic, but Im not a graphics
> freak and don't mind about turning off graphics options to medium/low. Im
> used to only affording what I need so no need to mention
> 
> Core 2 Duo 6300
> 1GB ram
> GeForce 7600
> Windows XP.
> 
Have you remembered to factor in the Power Supply (Of course depending 
on what you have now)?

Also if possible do consider going to 2 GB ram as for newer games it 
will make a pretty big difference. A game like FEAR likes to use about 
1.3 GB ram if I recall correctly.


> I'm not bothered about DX10 as it's out of my price range.
> 
Hold your breath a bit - the rumors are that AMD (They bought ATI) are 
bringing out DX10 graphics cards for the whole price range in a few 
weeks. Supposedly they are going for making even their fastest offerings 
somewhat cheaper than what has been the norm for a while.


> I can get all this for around £350 on ebay. Then I saw a pc with a duel core
> Intel Pentium D running at 6.8Ghz (2x3.4 I think) for only £160. Now, to me,
> the 6.8Ghz figure sounds amazing, when compared to the 3Ghz ish of the Core
> 2.
> 
A 6.8 Ghz CPU sound odd to me. I'm pretty sure someone took the Pentium 
D 3.4 Ghz and wrote 6.8 due to it being dual core.


> Any views on which would be better, given the price? I was prepared to pay
> the extra for the core 2, but is it worth it?
> 

I think yes. Especially if you consider overclocking and/or a possible 
CPU upgrade in the future when the CPU prices come down. The Pentium D 
is at the limit of it's platform while the Core 2 is still developing.

Kind regards
Bruno

"Bruno" <dont.use@this.address.ever> wrote in message 
news:462d37b6$0$7612$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
> -=Matt=- wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Not knowing much about CPUs these days (bring back the 386, 486 etc!), 
>> I'm a
>> bit confused as to the various merits of the new COre 2 Duo. To put it
>> simply, I'm hoping to be able to play games like Bioshock or Crysis on a 
>> new
>> rig. I know the system I'm looking at is fairly basic, but Im not a 
>> graphics
>> freak and don't mind about turning off graphics options to medium/low. Im
>> used to only affording what I need so no need to mention
>>
>> Core 2 Duo 6300
>> 1GB ram
>> GeForce 7600
>> Windows XP.
>>
> Have you remembered to factor in the Power Supply (Of course depending on 
> what you have now)?

No worries... the money will get me a whole new system you see! Minus VDU 
and peripherals of course, but I have those...

>
> Also if possible do consider going to 2 GB ram as for newer games it will 
> make a pretty big difference. A game like FEAR likes to use about 1.3 GB 
> ram if I recall correctly.
>
Well, I ran Fear ok-ish (on medium to low settings, but smooth) on my 
current system which is an Athlon 2500 with 512mb ram. But still, good 
point. Ram is pretty cheap these days too isn't it. :-)

>
>> I'm not bothered about DX10 as it's out of my price range.
>>
> Hold your breath a bit - the rumors are that AMD (They bought ATI) are 
> bringing out DX10 graphics cards for the whole price range in a few weeks. 
> Supposedly they are going for making even their fastest offerings somewhat 
> cheaper than what has been the norm for a while.
>
I didn't know that! Are you saying that you could get a DX10 card for under 
100 quid?


>
>> I can get all this for around Ł350 on ebay. Then I saw a pc with a duel 
>> core
>> Intel Pentium D running at 6.8Ghz (2x3.4 I think) for only Ł160. Now, to 
>> me,
>> the 6.8Ghz figure sounds amazing, when compared to the 3Ghz ish of the 
>> Core
>> 2.
>>
> A 6.8 Ghz CPU sound odd to me. I'm pretty sure someone took the Pentium D 
> 3.4 Ghz and wrote 6.8 due to it being dual core.
>
After just reading the same elsewhere I tend to agree. It's a bit cheeky 
though!


>
>> Any views on which would be better, given the price? I was prepared to 
>> pay
>> the extra for the core 2, but is it worth it?
>>
>
> I think yes. Especially if you consider overclocking and/or a possible CPU 
> upgrade in the future when the CPU prices come down. The Pentium D is at 
> the limit of it's platform while the Core 2 is still developing.

Thanks man. :-)

>
> Kind regards
> Bruno 

-=Matt=- wrote:
> I didn't know that! Are you saying that you could get a DX10 card for under 
> 100 quid?
>
No guarantee as it's just rumors so far. I do think it makes good sense 
for AMD(ATI) to do something like that but only time will tell.

Also with regards to DX10 remember that it means Vista (at least until 
there's a hack)!


> After just reading the same elsewhere I tend to agree. It's a bit cheeky 
> though!
>
I think it's borderline fraud - it's just like those who multiply memory 
speed when DDR ram is used. Or the makers of hard drives giving figures 
based on 1000 instead of 1024 :-/



>> I think yes. Especially if you consider overclocking and/or a possible CPU 
>> upgrade in the future when the CPU prices come down. The Pentium D is at 
>> the limit of it's platform while the Core 2 is still developing.
> 
> Thanks man. :-)
> 
Peace :-)

The core2 does around 30-50% more work per clock cycle than the old
"netburst" core used in the Pentium4.  AMD is around 10% less work per
clock cycle that core2, but cost less, too.  Browse around
http://www.tomshardware.com for a recent performance test of different
CPUs all runnung at 2.4 GHZ.
BTW, the netburst cores also used 30% more power than the core2 and
Athlon X2 CPUs (65 watt vs. 90 watt)

--Mort

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:00:12 +0100, "-=Matt=-"
<robert.franks@SPAMMUSTDIEbtbroadband.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Not knowing much about CPUs these days (bring back the 386, 486 etc!), I'm a
>bit confused as to the various merits of the new COre 2 Duo. To put it
>simply, I'm hoping to be able to play games like Bioshock or Crysis on a new
>rig. I know the system I'm looking at is fairly basic, but Im not a graphics
>freak and don't mind about turning off graphics options to medium/low. Im
>used to only affording what I need so no need to mention
>
>Core 2 Duo 6300
>1GB ram
>GeForce 7600
>Windows XP.
>
>I'm not bothered about DX10 as it's out of my price range.
>
>I can get all this for around £350 on ebay. Then I saw a pc with a duel core
>Intel Pentium D running at 6.8Ghz (2x3.4 I think) for only £160. Now, to me,
>the 6.8Ghz figure sounds amazing, when compared to the 3Ghz ish of the Core
>2.
>
>Any views on which would be better, given the price? I was prepared to pay
>the extra for the core 2, but is it worth it?
>
>\cheers
>Matt
>
>


-- Mort