get an fx-62 or a new mobo and 2 fx-72's so u cna have quad core
OOOHHHH deff get the fx-62 that processor is very very very l33t
15 more years! 15 more years!
Don't buy anything.
I agree, firstly theres little real gain from an SLI 8800GTX series set up, NO game challenges that card of yet, so double is complete overkill, still if u have the cash by all means..... I would say C2D also, but when you consider the cost of a good mobo, most likely the n680i's that's another $250 odd ontop of which ever core u descide to plump for, so sticking with AMD I agree with in this case. FX-62 is probably going to be your best bet I would say, raptor idea is good to, I have dualies in RAID 0 and my OS boots up in no time atall. Bit nosiey though, I am insulating my case cause of it...... Arent AMD releasing that new dual core soon btw? Sure I read it somewhere.......nukchebi0 wrote:
Don't buy anything.
Still I agree with nukchebi0, we are at a hardware and software change over right now, and eventhough no matter what you get, in 6months its replaced, right now I think all of us will feel the burn more than say in 6-12 months time. UNLESS ofcourse again youve got the cash to back it.
Martyn
wish i had your problem deciding!
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/chart … ;chart=169 FX-62 beats yes beats the FX-74
Yeah in like one test, lol.GR34 wrote:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=609&model2=464&chart=169 FX-62 beats yes beats the FX-74
I don't know why but for some reason that really fucking bothers me...haffeysucks wrote:
Get a 2nd 8800GTX. Then send it to me. Then kill yourself you rich son of a bitch.
I work construction, mostly carpentry (on top of photography jobs whenever I can get the). I work for myself (as in not only having to do the manual labor but having to do the paperwork as well). I've had 7 broken bones & 18 total job related injuries doing what I do. I get call outs at 3am to go fix someone's toilet because they're disgusting fucking slobs & I can't afford to turn down a job.
I was working at a job that was far enough away that it would be a bitch to drive all my ladders & equipment back & forth everyday so the homeowner told me I could leave all my stuff in their garage & she promised me they would lock it, then their junkie son sold it all (probably just for scrap metal) so after almost half a year I've gotten mostly new stuff & now that I finally got my check from them I have extra money. I don't know much about computer hardware so I'm asking which would be better. Don't be a cunt.
dw that guy is a gay ass homo anyway lolMagikTrik wrote:
I don't know why but for some reason that really fucking bothers me...haffeysucks wrote:
Get a 2nd 8800GTX. Then send it to me. Then kill yourself you rich son of a bitch.
I work construction, mostly carpentry (on top of photography jobs whenever I can get the). I work for myself (as in not only having to do the manual labor but having to do the paperwork as well). I've had 7 broken bones & 18 total job related injuries doing what I do. I get call outs at 3am to go fix someone's toilet because they're disgusting fucking slobs & I can't afford to turn down a job.
I was working at a job that was far enough away that it would be a bitch to drive all my ladders & equipment back & forth everyday so the homeowner told me I could leave all my stuff in their garage & she promised me they would lock it, then their junkie son sold it all (probably just for scrap metal) so after almost half a year I've gotten mostly new stuff & now that I finally got my check from them I have extra money. I don't know much about computer hardware so I'm asking which would be better. Don't be a cunt.
No, in most actual (non benchmark program) tests, the FX-62 performs better.redhawk454 wrote:
Yeah in like one test, lol.GR34 wrote:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=609&model2=464&chart=169 FX-62 beats yes beats the FX-74
The FX-74 is crap, it's overpriced, underpowered and you need your own nuclear reactor to power them (uses way more power than an 8800).
Upgrade your CPU as far as you can go because your CPU is gonna be the bottleneck in your system anyway. The 8800GTX needs alot of processing power so the better the CPU you have the better the 8800GTX will perform.
wtf you talking about the best sc is not fatality its the elite pro.Reciprocity wrote:
I'd say CPU. or a Xfi sound card, unless you already have one.
best:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6829102005
also good:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6829102188
they are worth the price.
Go get some RAM and the best Xfi sound card out there and buy Windows Vista(or prebuy, cant remember if its out yet). Wait like 6 months until quad core processors are used then go get one of them with a new motherboard.
Ok then why in the link that was placed, there was only one test it performed better in? The link was to Toms Hardware. You click other tests and the 74 either marginally beats the 62 or blows it out of the water. Personally I have liked the AMD chips, but I really like what I see in the Intel C2D.Bertster7 wrote:
No, in most actual (non benchmark program) tests, the FX-62 performs better.redhawk454 wrote:
Yeah in like one test, lol.GR34 wrote:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=609&model2=464&chart=169 FX-62 beats yes beats the FX-74
The FX-74 is crap, it's overpriced, underpowered and you need your own nuclear reactor to power them (uses way more power than an 8800).
FSX makes the 8800GTX cry on DX9 not even DX10. On a E6600 and 2GB of ram with and 8800GTX you can enjoy 10fps on a built up area. GG microsoft.Bell wrote:
I agree, firstly theres little real gain from an SLI 8800GTX series set up, NO game challenges that card of yet, so double is complete overkill, still if u have the cash by all means..... I would say C2D also, but when you consider the cost of a good mobo, most likely the n680i's that's another $250 odd ontop of which ever core u descide to plump for, so sticking with AMD I agree with in this case. FX-62 is probably going to be your best bet I would say, raptor idea is good to, I have dualies in RAID 0 and my OS boots up in no time atall. Bit nosiey though, I am insulating my case cause of it...... Arent AMD releasing that new dual core soon btw? Sure I read it somewhere.......nukchebi0 wrote:
Don't buy anything.
Still I agree with nukchebi0, we are at a hardware and software change over right now, and eventhough no matter what you get, in 6months its replaced, right now I think all of us will feel the burn more than say in 6-12 months time. UNLESS ofcourse again youve got the cash to back it.
Martyn
You clearly haven't looked at the tests thoroughly enough.redhawk454 wrote:
Ok then why in the link that was placed, there was only one test it performed better in? The link was to Toms Hardware. You click other tests and the 74 either marginally beats the 62 or blows it out of the water. Personally I have liked the AMD chips, but I really like what I see in the Intel C2D.Bertster7 wrote:
No, in most actual (non benchmark program) tests, the FX-62 performs better.redhawk454 wrote:
Yeah in like one test, lol.
The FX-74 is crap, it's overpriced, underpowered and you need your own nuclear reactor to power them (uses way more power than an 8800).
3ds max - FX-74
AVG - FX-74
COD2 - FX-62
Clone DVD - FX-74
FEAR (both tests) - FX-62
itunes - FX-74
Lame mp3 - FX-74
Mainconcept - FX-74
Powerpoint - FX-62
Word - FX-74
Ogg - FX-74
Photoshop CS2 (rendering) - FX-62
Photoshop CS2 (converting) - FX-74
Pinacle Studio 9 - FX-74
Quake IV - FX-62
Serious Sam 2 - FX-62
Unreal Tournament '04 - FX-62
WMV encoding - FX-74
Winrar - FX-62
WMA 9.1 - FX-62
Xvid encoding - FX-62
Those are the simple results of which CPU came out on top in real world performance, not benchmarking tools. Each CPU performed better in 11 tests (remember there are 2 tests for FEAR). The FX-74 should perform much better. These are all taken from the link at Toms Hardware.
I'll have either please!
Question is why should the FX-74 even lose a benchmark compared to an FX62?Bertster7 wrote:
You clearly haven't looked at the tests thoroughly enough.redhawk454 wrote:
Ok then why in the link that was placed, there was only one test it performed better in? The link was to Toms Hardware. You click other tests and the 74 either marginally beats the 62 or blows it out of the water. Personally I have liked the AMD chips, but I really like what I see in the Intel C2D.Bertster7 wrote:
No, in most actual (non benchmark program) tests, the FX-62 performs better.
The FX-74 is crap, it's overpriced, underpowered and you need your own nuclear reactor to power them (uses way more power than an 8800).
3ds max - FX-74
AVG - FX-74
COD2 - FX-62
Clone DVD - FX-74
FEAR (both tests) - FX-62
itunes - FX-74
Lame mp3 - FX-74
Mainconcept - FX-74
Powerpoint - FX-62
Word - FX-74
Ogg - FX-74
Photoshop CS2 (rendering) - FX-62
Photoshop CS2 (converting) - FX-74
Pinacle Studio 9 - FX-74
Quake IV - FX-62
Serious Sam 2 - FX-62
Unreal Tournament '04 - FX-62
WMV encoding - FX-74
Winrar - FX-62
WMA 9.1 - FX-62
Xvid encoding - FX-62
Those are the simple results of which CPU came out on top in real world performance, not benchmarking tools. Each CPU performed better in 11 tests (remember there are 2 tests for FEAR). The FX-74 should perform much better. These are all taken from the link at Toms Hardware.
Let alone lose 50% of the benchmarks against an FX-62.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Question is why should the FX-74 even lose a benchmark compared to an FX62?Bertster7 wrote:
You clearly haven't looked at the tests thoroughly enough.redhawk454 wrote:
Ok then why in the link that was placed, there was only one test it performed better in? The link was to Toms Hardware. You click other tests and the 74 either marginally beats the 62 or blows it out of the water. Personally I have liked the AMD chips, but I really like what I see in the Intel C2D.
3ds max - FX-74
AVG - FX-74
COD2 - FX-62
Clone DVD - FX-74
FEAR (both tests) - FX-62
itunes - FX-74
Lame mp3 - FX-74
Mainconcept - FX-74
Powerpoint - FX-62
Word - FX-74
Ogg - FX-74
Photoshop CS2 (rendering) - FX-62
Photoshop CS2 (converting) - FX-74
Pinacle Studio 9 - FX-74
Quake IV - FX-62
Serious Sam 2 - FX-62
Unreal Tournament '04 - FX-62
WMV encoding - FX-74
Winrar - FX-62
WMA 9.1 - FX-62
Xvid encoding - FX-62
Those are the simple results of which CPU came out on top in real world performance, not benchmarking tools. Each CPU performed better in 11 tests (remember there are 2 tests for FEAR). The FX-74 should perform much better. These are all taken from the link at Toms Hardware.
It should perform better running in Vista, but that still doesn't excuse it's performance here.
I stand corrected. Can anyone tell me how bad the 64bit processors were when they first canme out? I am not sure but I thought they had plenty of problems until they had decent Mobos with Decent chipsets.
Dunno. My 754 3200+ ran ok on my horrible old Via K8T800 chipset. I've still got it lying around, still going strong on some very outdated chipset drivers. There could have been issues with the 940s or the P4EEs tho, I dunno.redhawk454 wrote:
I stand corrected. Can anyone tell me how bad the 64bit processors were when they first canme out? I am not sure but I thought they had plenty of problems until they had decent Mobos with Decent chipsets.