Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
azaedes

Best computer of these 3 for gaming?

50 posts in this topic

Core 2 Duo E6300 will outperform a 4GHz Pentium D easily. Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz is as fast as Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz but E6300 has insane overclocking potential on top of that and it is over $100 cheaper than X2 5000+.

I'm currently using A64 3700+@2.7GHz and my next CPU will definitely be C2D E6300.

Where did you get that information? I would put the C2D 6300 on a level ground with a 4400X2. The only benefit I would see is it's ability to use DDR2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you get that information? I would put the C2D 6300 on a level ground with a 4400X2. The only benefit I would see is it's ability to use DDR2.

Here for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9

Core 2 Duo architecture is superior to what AMD has to offer. X2 5000+ uses DDR2 too. Too bad AMD Socket AM2 with DDR2 doesn't offer any real benefits over Socket 939 with DDR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azedes, I built my machine for $1000 (not counting the monitor), and I am running some really hot hardware (AM2 3800 SC, 2GB DDR2-800, BFG 7900 GTOC) that is still not outclassed. I can do everything ingame. I only wish I spent more on the motherboard and maybe had a little more patience on getting a better powersupply on the case, otherwise completely happy.

Two-three years ago the retailers were keeping their heads down with the economy in the tank, but I noticed lately they have been building their profit margins back in and it is worth $200-300 to build your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9

Core 2 Duo architecture is superior to what AMD has to offer. X2 5000+ uses DDR2 too. Too bad AMD Socket AM2 with DDR2 doesn't offer any real benefits over Socket 939 with DDR.

As I said the C2D 6300 is on an even plane with the 4400X2 even in the chart you show. OC'ing aside because I could buy an opty and OC the crap out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said the C2D 6300 is on an even plane with the 4400X2 even in the chart you show. OC'ing aside because I could buy an opty and OC the crap out of it.

Ummm... It beats all X2 CPUs in BF2 which is really CPU intensive game. In HL2: EP1 it's as fast as X2 5000+ and in Quake 4 it's as fast as X2 4600+. Let me guess: you own a X2 4400+?

edit: Oh, one thing: I would take a X2 4400+ over a X2 4600+ any day. Despite working at lower clock frequency it has 1MB L2 cache per core when compared to X2 4600+ 512kB L2 cache per core. Too bad X2 4400+ CPUs are not made anymore and only good option for S939 is an Opteron. AM2 is just waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm... It beats all X2 CPUs in BF2 which is really CPU intensive game. In HL2: EP1 it's as fast as X2 5000+ and in Quake 4 it's as fast as X2 4600+. Let me guess: you own a X2 4400+?

edit: Oh, one thing: I would take a X2 4400+ over a X2 4600+ any day. Despite working at lower clock frequency it has 1MB L2 cache per core when compared to X2 4600+ 512kB L2 cache per core. Too bad X2 4400+ CPUs are not made anymore and only good option for S939 is an Opteron. AM2 is just waste of money.

Ummmm.. no it does not it is .3 FPS better than a 4200X2. You are looking at the OC'd 6300 and that is not how you compar them. And, wrong again I don't own a 4400X2 I own a 4800X2. This isn't about what I have it is about what you posted. The 6300 in your link is running roughly even in Q4 with the 4200X2. I am sure it does better then it is other applications hence, the comparison with the 4400X2.

And 1mb L2 cache is practically worthless in performance boost over the 512kb L2.

And BTW I did own a 4200X2 and had it OC'd to 2.6g so your comparison would go out the window with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is of the 3 I would choose NONE. The onboard vidoe is a deal killer for all of them. You can buy the components seperatley and have someone put it together for you where you live. You can also keep shopping for a better deal "which is my advice and has been" and it shouldn't be too hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummmm.. no it does not it is .3 FPS better than a 4200X2. You are looking at the OC'd 6300 and that is not how you compar them. And, wrong again I don't own a 4400X2 I own a 4800X2. This isn't about what I have it is about what you posted. The 6300 in your link is running roughly even in Q4 with the 4200X2. I am sure it does better then it is other applications hence, the comparison with the 4400X2.

And 1mb L2 cache is practically worthless in performance boost over the 512kb L2.

And BTW I did own a 4200X2 and had it OC'd to 2.6g so your comparison would go out the window with that.

Umm... nope.

BF2 performance:

E6300 1.86GHz 98.9fps

5000+ 2.6GHz 95.7fps

In Quake 4 X2 CPUs do really well but generally E6300 ~ X2 5000+ in gaming performance.

When I went from A64 with 512kB L2 cache to A64 with 1MB L2 cache there was a huge difference in WW2OL and Oblivion performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm... nope.

BF2 performance:

E6300 1.86GHz 98.9fps

5000+ 2.6GHz 95.7fps

In Quake 4 X2 CPUs do really well but generally E6300 ~ X2 5000+ in gaming performance.

When I went from A64 with 512kB L2 cache to A64 with 1MB L2 cache there was a huge difference in WW2OL and Oblivion performance.

You take ONE comparison out of all of those and put it up? How about the 14 FPS advantage the 5000 has over it in the other one. Be serious you find a site and ONE comparison where it fits and use it.

And what A64 with 512kb L2 did you go from and to what A64 1MB L2 cache. Because I can bet it wasn't due to the L2 cache that you saw your performance boost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah! I was going to post benchmarks to dispute your haphazard finding but I really don't feel like wasting any more time.

Buy what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what A64 with 512kb L2 did you go from and to what A64 1MB L2 cache. Because I can bet it wasn't due to the L2 cache that you saw your performance boost.

3000+@2.4GHz to 3700+@2.7GHz and minimum fps went from 25 to 35 in 1.23. 12,5% difference in clock frequency does not explain 40% difference in minimum fps. Too bad the 1.24 wrecked my fps again but that's another story.

edit: Here's Anandtechs review with non-OCd CPUs (see next pages too):

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14

E6300 gaming performance is mostly between X2 5000+ and X2 4600+ but it even manages to beat much more expensive X2 5000+ in BF2 but it loses even to X2 4200+ in Quake 4. Still I must say that E6300 is much better solution than X2 5000+. It consumes less power, has insane OC potential, performs about as good as X2 5000+ in games, it's a lot cheaper and doesn't need expensive 800MHz DDR2 memory to get full performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3000+@2.4GHz to 3700+@2.7GHz and minimum fps went from 25 to 35 in 1.23. 12,5% difference in clock frequency does not explain 40% difference in minimum fps. Too bad the 1.24 wrecked my fps again but that's another story.

edit: Here's Anandtechs review with non-OCd CPUs (see next pages too):

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14

E6300 gaming performance is mostly between X2 5000+ and X2 4600+ but it even manages to beat much more expensive X2 5000+ in BF2 but it loses even to X2 4200+ in Quake 4. Still I must say that E6300 is much better solution than X2 5000+. It consumes less power, has insane OC potential, performs about as good as X2 5000+ in games, it's a lot cheaper and doesn't need expensive 800MHz DDR2 memory to get full performance.

A 300Mhz upgrade can definatley explain a 40% increase in a CPU intenst game. However, L2 alone is not a worthwhile upgrade. Going by your logic a 1.86g CPU should perform less than a 2.4g CPU.

And EVERY benchmark except ONE that you listed has the 6300 performing BELOW the 5000. It is comperable with the 4400 or 4600 but I would take the 5000 over a 6300 if that was my ONLY choice.

Right now I think the 6600 is the best deal. It FAR outperforms any of the chips you put the 6300 against as well as the 6300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys you're being kinda rude in this guys thread. Take it to another one or to PMs.

Joker skimmed through your list, close but no cigar. Few things you overlooked, one the OS is not a retail version, its an update CD which requires the user to have a full version of an older version of windows for validation before it installs. The computers in his choice dont do that.

Second, the HDD is smaller but also OEM which means it has a 30day warranty and then hes out of luck. I personally might take the chance on an OEM HDD but i wouldnt suggest it to most people.

Third, you didnt include shipping which would be 20-40 from memory, its been awhile since i bought alot of stuff. Again, notice something, savings +/- ~$50 and thats with what you picked without the above scrutiny. You've proved me right, thank you :). There is no tons of savings in building your own and you get the hassle. I agree hes going to need a graphics card, but i still say he should just get his third choice and buy a $150 card to put into it and hes set rather then buying all the parts, hoping nothing arrives broke, installing all the hardware, making sure he does it right so nothing shorts out, installing all the programs and service packs + updates (AA gives me serious issues, something a newbie wouldnt be aware of). It just isnt worth the $60-80 or even $100 savings to some people. You're being very stubborn though so i think i'm about done since i've proved my point. Some people may like to build their own, but that doesnt give you the right to push that ideal or assume that everyone should do it. Third party system builders stay in a very lucrative business for a reason.

When companies build PC's they use generic MB's, RAM etc.

Heres a little hint. OEM parts are the same stuff you get in retail/etailer stores. eVGA is the major nVidia supplier for OEMs when it comes to graphics cards, sometimes BFG deals with Alienware, Sapphire Tech supplies the ATI cards. Motherboards are either custom builds by Intel themselves or Asus in the case of Nvidia and AMD chipsets. Memory, perhaps the funniest comment you've made, i've noticed you like to pick the brand name crap. Fact, there are only THREE major memory suppliers in the WORLD that supply pretty much all memory chips. Only ONE in the US, being Micron. They make the memory chips for the third party companies like G.Skill, Crucial, Patriot, etc...so personally i'd get some generic ram any day of the week by crucial which is Microns memory offshoot and a main supplier to OEMs along with Samsung. I really hope you're learning some stuff, because from your cocky candor, you seem to be acting like you know more then you do.

To the OP, i still say you should get your third choice and add a card. Its the best computer for performance/hardware and the least amount of stress for your dollar. Either way you go, what ever you choose, good luck and i'm sure it will work great for ya ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys you're being kinda rude in this guys thread. Take it to another one or to PMs.

Joker skimmed through your list, close but no cigar. Few things you overlooked, one the OS is not a retail version, its an update CD which requires the user to have a full version of an older version of windows for validation before it installs. The computers in his choice dont do that.

Second, the HDD is smaller but also OEM which means it has a 30day warranty and then hes out of luck. I personally might take the chance on an OEM HDD but i wouldnt suggest it to most people.

Third, you didnt include shipping which would be 20-40 from memory, its been awhile since i bought alot of stuff. Again, notice something, savings +/- ~$50 and thats with what you picked without the above scrutiny. You've proved me right, thank you :). There is no tons of savings in building your own and you get the hassle. I agree hes going to need a graphics card, but i still say he should just get his third choice and buy a $150 card to put into it and hes set rather then buying all the parts, hoping nothing arrives broke, installing all the hardware, making sure he does it right so nothing shorts out, installing all the programs and service packs + updates (AA gives me serious issues, something a newbie wouldnt be aware of). It just isnt worth the $60-80 or even $100 savings to some people. You're being very stubborn though so i think i'm about done since i've proved my point. Some people may like to build their own, but that doesnt give you the right to push that ideal or assume that everyone should do it. Third party system builders stay in a very lucrative business for a reason.

Heres a little hint. OEM parts are the same stuff you get in retail/etailer stores. eVGA is the major nVidia supplier for OEMs when it comes to graphics cards, sometimes BFG deals with Alienware, Sapphire Tech supplies the ATI cards. Motherboards are either custom builds by Intel themselves or Asus in the case of Nvidia and AMD chipsets. Memory, perhaps the funniest comment you've made, i've noticed you like to pick the brand name crap. Fact, there are only THREE major memory suppliers in the WORLD that supply pretty much all memory chips. Only ONE in the US, being Micron. They make the memory chips for the third party companies like G.Skill, Crucial, Patriot, etc...so personally i'd get some generic ram any day of the week by crucial which is Microns memory offshoot and a main supplier to OEMs along with Samsung. I really hope you're learning some stuff, because from your cocky candor, you seem to be acting like you know more then you do.

To the OP, i still say you should get your third choice and add a card. Its the best computer for performance/hardware and the least amount of stress for your dollar. Either way you go, what ever you choose, good luck and i'm sure it will work great for ya ;).

K6 I did in fact include shipping if you would have looked all the way down the thread by the final price. And a OEM XP disc goes for $89.99 which is $10 cheaper than the one I quicly put in there. As for the HD a 320g HD is about $30 more. I know of very few people who need HD's that large and if you do you should be running a RAID anyway. Now I was already roughly $100 cheaper and that is with a $150 7600GT in my rig with good RAM and MB.

Now I agree that my way of presenting this is harsh but I just think those assembly line rigs are WORTHLESS. And I would hate to see someone buy one and be disappointed in what they got off someone elses advice.

As for your RAM comment you are correct BUT there is a difference in the RAM selections and you know it. Some MB's wont even POST with value ram in them. Better RAM = Better timming = better performance and you know it.

I don't say he should build his own computer I said I build my own. But I do think he should shop around as there are better deals with better equipment out there. And building your own should not be just dismissed it isn't all that complicated. Although I know some don't want to take the time to do it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.

I gave you TWO different setups one higher end and one mid range. BOTH of which would outperform any of the selections he had there. Not my fault you don't want to admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gah! I was going to post benchmarks to dispute your haphazard finding but I really don't feel like wasting any more time.

Buy what you want.

Hmmm not sure where you're getting your information, but everything I've heard is that even the E6300 beats the 4400+ in gaming generally across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should look at the link K6 posted, the only game the 6300 beats the 4400X2 is in BF2. No doubt the C2D technology is the best on the market now but I think the 6300 is the bottome of the barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though they have onboard video?

Huh, what are you talking about? The link is for homebuilds with the 7600 GT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you should look at the link K6 posted' date=' the only game the 6300 beats the 4400X2 is in BF2. No doubt the C2D technology is the best on the market now but I think the 6300 is the bottome of the barrel.[/quote']

LOL.

You don't even read any reviews, do you? You actually didn't even bother to read the ones I posted:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15

E6300 beats X2 4600+ in F.E.A.R and Rise of the Legends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL.

You don't even read any reviews, do you? You actually didn't even bother to read the ones I posted:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15

E6300 beats X2 4600+ in F.E.A.R and Rise of the Legends.

LOL

Maybe you should learn to read numbers. In fear it is 92 which the 4600X2 is as well. In ROL it just beats the 4600X2 by 2 FPS. So we'll bump it up to 4600X2's range, sheesh. Hell we'll put it up to my 4800X2's range just to make you happy but it doesn't outperform on the 5000 on stock settings.

You really should just let this go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.