PDA

View Full Version : If you were building a new rig....


Pages : [1] 2

Roliath
08-04-08, 04:07 PM
I have a buddy who is building a new gaming rig, thanks to his recent trip to QuakeCon.

He wants "ultimate' performance, for around 1200 USD. I'm not sure if that price includes KB/Mouse/LCD/speakers.

He has his heart set on a Phenom, and I was never impressed with their performance compared to Intels' counterparts. He did mention if he goes AMD he wants to stick with ATi, and go Nvidia should he go Intel.

For flat out gaming, nothing else, nothing more. What would you go with? Quad/260~280? Phenom/4870?

Keep in mind, SLI/Cross-Fire is in his upgrade path.

Thanks for any help towards this.

Bman212121
08-04-08, 04:10 PM
I have a buddy who is building a new gaming rig, thanks to his recent trip to QuakeCon.

He wants "ultimate' performance, for around 1200 USD. I'm not sure if that price includes KB/Mouse/LCD/speakers.

He has his heart set on a Phenom, and I was never impressed with their performance compared to Intels' counterparts. He did mention if he goes AMD he wants to stick with ATi, and go Nvidia should he go Intel.

For flat out gaming, nothing else, nothing more. What would you go with? Quad/260~280? Phenom/4870?

Keep in mind, SLI/Cross-Fire is in his upgrade path.

Thanks for any help towards this.

Build him a rig just like yours. That would be in the ballpark of what you were looking at.

Medion
08-04-08, 04:26 PM
Intel Quad + Hd4870.

Roliath
08-04-08, 04:29 PM
Intel Quad + Hd4870.

That's what I was thinking originally when he brought up ATi, but I wonder if the extra ram + physx support on the GTX260/80's would be worth it.

Only reason I got a GTX260 was because I couldn't find a HD4870.

Stoneyguy
08-04-08, 04:56 PM
Like I've posted before, for me it's a toss up between what I don't want in my system more, Nvidia's chipsets or ATI's drivers. As you can see in my sig, I've gone with having to bear ATI's drivers.

For sure don't go with AMD's CPU.

Roliath
08-04-08, 05:09 PM
I was just told, $1500 with kb/mouse/lcd.

Yeah, the spider platform in my opinion just does not make sense to purchase when Intel's will "blow" (used loosely) in gaming performance.

Thanks for the comments guys!

nekrosoft13
08-04-08, 05:09 PM
i own both Intel and AMD Quad

and would have to say AMD Quad are waste of money.

Tr1cK
08-04-08, 05:14 PM
The poll needs like 2 more options, specifically Intel CPU & ATI Card.

Nvidia chipsets are crap compared to Intels and you can't go SLI on Intel for $1200.

AMD CPUs are garbage compared to Intels as well. They can't compete clock for clock or dollar for dollar.

Roliath
08-04-08, 05:20 PM
The poll needs like 2 more options, specifically Intel CPU & ATI Card.

Nvidia chipsets are crap compared to Intels and you can't go SLI on Intel for $1200.

AMD CPUs are garbage compared to Intels as well. They can't compete clock for clock or dollar for dollar.

I wish I could edit Polls to add that option.

I wouldn't go as far as say Nvidia's chipsets are Crap, but when they work properly they're very good performers, I am a fan of Intel's Chipsets though that's for sure.

Feyy
08-04-08, 05:21 PM
Wheres the Nehalem option :)?

Roliath
08-04-08, 05:40 PM
Wheres the Nehalem option :)?

Oh, believe me I have already brought that up. :)

Up to him really, I can only give him advice and show him the advice others (you guys) have posted.

CaptNKILL
08-04-08, 05:48 PM
If you want to make another poll with different options I'll delete this one.

This one isn't going to help much since hardly anyone is going to vote for an AMD Quad.

Roliath
08-04-08, 05:53 PM
If you want to make another poll with different options I'll delete this one.

This one isn't going to help much since hardly anyone is going to vote for an AMD Quad.

Nah, that's fine. I believe this should be fine, or at least it should help him with his decision.

thanks though Capt!

mullet
08-05-08, 01:14 AM
I would sell your rig to him and build you another. What do you think man?

Redeemed
08-05-08, 01:38 AM
Like I've posted before, for me it's a toss up between what I don't want in my system more, Nvidia's chipsets or ATI's drivers. As you can see in my sig, I've gone with having to bear ATI's drivers.

For sure don't go with AMD's CPU.

:wtf:

Currently, the Q6600 is $35 more than a Phenom 9600 (retail)- and no gamer will notice that huge a difference between the two (realistically). Only in certain situations that are extremely CPU dependant will there be a good difference between the two.

Then again, it does boil down to preference. I, to this day, have yet to find anything that fully taxes my 9600 at stock speeds. So far, I've never had this computer become unresponsive cause it's busy "thinking" nor has it ever not been snappy, even with two games running in the background while I'm browsing the web looking for information (i.e. having a full game of C&C3 running minized after I've dominated the map and another game of Oblivion running minimized while I browse for tips on completing a quest).

You'll never hear me say that a current Phenom is a faster CPU than a similar priced Core2 Quad- that's just untrue as the Intel's are faster hands down. But I'm quite certain the majority of you couldn't tell the difference if you were placed in front of a stock rig running a Q6600 and another stock rig running a Phenom 9600.

i own both Intel and AMD Quad

and would have to say AMD Quad are waste of money.

Once more, for gaming, your comment could not be farther from the truth. And yes, I also own a Q6600. If you're going to do something like full-length video encoding at 1080p or the likes, and this is something you do regularly, then yes- the Core2 Quad is a considerably better alternative. But for gaming alone you'll notice zero difference between the two platforms.

Legit Reviews (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/682/1/) shows the 9850 typically keeping up with the Q6600, trailing the Q6600 in a few tests, and exceeding it in others. This is with both procs at stock (meaning the 9850 is only 100Mhz faster than the Q6600).

And as you can see, there would have been no noticeable difference between the Phenom and the Q6600 even in gaming. Really, most the claims about AMD's CPUs are unwarranted. Especially with their current pricing.

bob saget
08-05-08, 03:02 AM
i put AMD quad just cause i remember loosly redeemed bringing something up about there being very little difference in games.

Stoneyguy
08-05-08, 04:01 AM
:wtf:

Currently, the Q6600 is $35 more than a Phenom 9600 (retail)- and no gamer will notice that huge a difference between the two (realistically). Only in certain situations that are extremely CPU dependant will there be a good difference between the two.


Well in the benchmarks I've seen (firing squad comes to mind) the 9950 fell just a hair behind the 6600 in almost all benchmarks and it cost 40 dollars more on newegg then the Q6600. So there is no real difference between the 9600 and 9950?

SH64
08-05-08, 08:22 AM
My current system. Intel Quad or highly clocked Duo + 280.

LordJuanlo
08-05-08, 09:05 AM
Intel Quad + Hd4870.

+1

dxx
08-05-08, 10:06 AM
I'd go AMD + AMD on the basis that even though the AMD CPUs are less powerful than Intel's, CrossFireX, with its multimonitors, only works on the AMD platform. I would much rather have a slightly less powerful system and three 22" monitors for surround gaming than have my CPU sitting bored 30% of the time while it waits for the Vsync, which is pretty much the only bottleneck left.

Redeemed
08-05-08, 10:17 AM
Well in the benchmarks I've seen (firing squad comes to mind) the 9950 fell just a hair behind the 6600 in almost all benchmarks and it cost 40 dollars more on newegg then the Q6600. So there is no real difference between the 9600 and 9950?

For gaming, you might net some greater FPS between the 9600 and 9950- but the difference wont be noticeable by most. In the benchmark I linked to previously as an example, there was a 10fps difference- 62fps in CoD4 for the 9600 and 72fps for the 9850- and I'd guarantee that you'd be none the wiser if sat in front of both rigs. The human eye can't notice anything above 60fps, so adding 10fps won't make it seem any more smooth or less "choppy"- they'd appear identical to most folk.

But you do have me in that I used poor word choice in my previous post... you'll net better performance gaming with a 9850 than you would a 9600... you just wouldn't be able to notice it in most cases.

Oh, and you might want to have a look at the chips current pricing- the 9600 goes for about $150 while the 9850 goes for roughly the same price as the Q6600- about $190 (retail). ;)

Roliath
08-05-08, 10:52 AM
Oh believe me I know too Darkhitman.


Good info on the AMD procs guys, now what if you were to introduce overclocking and overclock both cpus. Which would net better gains?

Stoneyguy
08-05-08, 01:26 PM
Oh, and you might want to have a look at the chips current pricing- the 9600 goes for about $150 while the 9850 goes for roughly the same price as the Q6600- about $190 (retail). ;)

Oh, and you might want to have a look at my post again. I was referring to the 9950. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103273);)

Redeemed
08-05-08, 01:53 PM
Oh, and you might want to have a look at my post again. I was referring to the 9950. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103273);)

That really isn't a proper comparison. The 9850 keeps up with the Q6600 sufficiently while costing just a few bucks less (literally). Hence why I didn't mention the 9950. If I had to choose between JUST the 9950 and the Q6600- I'd go with the Q6600. If I had to choose between the complete lineup of PhenomX4s and the Core2 Quads, and I was on a budget- I'd go with the Phenoms + better oc'ing RAM and cooling and mobo.

Intel Quad against Amd Quad? Intel, no comp.

Well, you're more right than wrong- but you should also mention that the 9850s have been known to OC by upto 1Ghz over stock speeds on air- and of course that an higher with ease on water.

With that said, the Q6600 would still net you more of a gain from OC'ing due to it's more efficient architecture. But again- I can guarantee that for a gaming rig you'd not notice a big difference between a Phenom 9850 at 3.5Ghz and a Q6600 @ 3.5Ghz- you'd be essentially in the same boat you'd be in leaving them at stock speeds.

Stoneyguy
08-05-08, 04:39 PM
That really isn't a proper comparison. The 9850 keeps up with the Q6600 sufficiently while costing just a few bucks less (literally). Hence why I didn't mention the 9950. If I had to choose between JUST the 9950 and the Q6600- I'd go with the Q6600. If I had to choose between the complete lineup of PhenomX4s and the Core2 Quads, and I was on a budget- I'd go with the Phenoms + better oc'ing RAM and cooling and mobo.


I disagree. I think it's more then a proper comparison. I think it's the best comparison. Performance wise, the 9950 and Q6600 have the most similar benchmarking results. If there is little to no difference between the 9850 and the 9950, then it's AMD's fault for making a useless 9950 version.

To be fair I looked up "9850 vs Q6600" and found this article. (http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=735&p=7) At stock, the 9850 still lagged behind the Q6600 and used more power while doing so. The conclusion stated that the Q6600 OC'ed far better then the 9850. So better stock performance, less power, and more overclocking headroom to me makes the Q6600 the far more desirable part even if it's priced a bit more.

Now I believe you when you say that if you use the CPU solely for gaming that you won't "see" any performance difference. Even then, as time goes by and both CPUs become lacking at stock speeds, I would be glad to have that OC ability to extend the longevity of my CPU and not have to worry about purchasing another sooner.

Oh and as for the price difference:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9042/pricemw5.th.jpg (http://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pricemw5.jpg)