Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Athlon FX-62 in 3Dmark06/Sandra/Q4 - Page 2

jmke · 18th June 2006, 16:57

if you have a Quad SLI rig you are not going to play at 1600x1200, if you DO you wasted quite a bit of money; you have to find a good balance of resolution/IQ and your GFX and not buy an unnecessary fast setup if you don't plan on exploiting its power, if you do experience a CPU bottleneck you have either an OLD cpu <2Ghz or you are running at resolutions where the extra speed of a faster CPU don't matter anymore.

who cares if you have 80 or 140FPS at 1280x1024 in F.E.A.R. you won't notice the difference and both will play fluently; current and next generation games will still rely on a fast GPU for 99% for rendering each frame, the CPU has not played a large part in games in the last 2-3 years now and I don't see this changing with the continued push with higher resolution textures in game, more complex models, higher resolutions and higher IQ (AA / AF).

if you are a gamer either Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2 will suffice just fine; I would just go with a dual core because of the added bonus of having a 2nd CPU in windows to "play" with so you can burn DVD, encode WMV files and surf the web without delay; with a single core CPU you will notice slowdowns if you combine several of these applications.

games making use of Dual Core CPUs is all fine and dandy, but as it was proven before, you'll only notice the difference at lower resolutions and then again you are comparing 80fps vs 110fps;

18th June 2006, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by jmke
either A64 or Core 2 will be plenty fast for gamers; if you already A64 switching to Core2 will not give you any tangilble in-game boost; that's what I'm saying

I totally agree with that. If you have a blazing fast X2 or FX60 setup, you definitely should not upgrade for a while, since I don't think any games coming out are going to use the extra power any time soon. But, if you had to upgrade the day after Conroe came out due to an toasted CPU and mobo, don't you think a fast and cheap Conroe would be a smarter purchase than a high-end X2 or FX62?

jmke · 18th June 2006, 17:13

yes; and I don't dispute that

I'm going Core 2 Duo too, S754 A64 3000+ has served its purpose

18th June 2006, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by jmke
yes; and I don't dispute that I'm going Core 2 Duo too, S754 A64 3000+ has served its purpose

haha Same here. I'm going to retire my 3500+ and get a X1900 master card for some crossfire goodness.

Gamer · 18th June 2006, 17:47

but your HDD will still be a limited factor....

a change would be great

jmke · 18th June 2006, 17:51

flashdrive with high transfer speeds at low prices and we are good to go

Gamer · 18th June 2006, 17:53

any time soon ?

jmke · 18th June 2006, 17:56

if "soon" is 5 years... yes. If "soon" is 2006, no way.

64Gb Flashdrive with 20Mb/s transfer rate €999

18th June 2006, 17:13	#13
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	yes; and I don't dispute that I'm going Core 2 Duo too, S754 A64 3000+ has served its purpose __________________

18th June 2006, 17:47	#15
Gamer [M] Reviewer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,587	but your HDD will still be a limited factor.... a change would be great __________________

18th June 2006, 17:51	#16
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	flashdrive with high transfer speeds at low prices and we are good to go __________________

18th June 2006, 17:53	#17
Gamer [M] Reviewer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,587	any time soon ? __________________

18th June 2006, 17:56	#18
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	if "soon" is 5 years... yes. If "soon" is 2006, no way. 64Gb Flashdrive with 20Mb/s transfer rate €999 __________________

18th June 2006, 16:57	#11
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	if you have a Quad SLI rig you are not going to play at 1600x1200, if you DO you wasted quite a bit of money; you have to find a good balance of resolution/IQ and your GFX and not buy an unnecessary fast setup if you don't plan on exploiting its power, if you do experience a CPU bottleneck you have either an OLD cpu <2Ghz or you are running at resolutions where the extra speed of a faster CPU don't matter anymore. who cares if you have 80 or 140FPS at 1280x1024 in F.E.A.R. you won't notice the difference and both will play fluently; current and next generation games will still rely on a fast GPU for 99% for rendering each frame, the CPU has not played a large part in games in the last 2-3 years now and I don't see this changing with the continued push with higher resolution textures in game, more complex models, higher resolutions and higher IQ (AA / AF). if you are a gamer either Core 2 Duo or Athlon X2 will suffice just fine; I would just go with a dual core because of the added bonus of having a 2nd CPU in windows to "play" with so you can burn DVD, encode WMV files and surf the web without delay; with a single core CPU you will notice slowdowns if you combine several of these applications. games making use of Dual Core CPUs is all fine and dandy, but as it was proven before, you'll only notice the difference at lower resolutions and then again you are comparing 80fps vs 110fps;

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Processor Review	thorgal	WebNews	0	15th March 2007 11:08
INTEL Core 2 Duo E6600 Processor	jmke	WebNews	0	24th January 2007 11:09
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Energy Efficient and the Core 2 Duo E6300	jmke	WebNews	0	8th August 2006 09:16
AMD will drop Athlon 64 X2 prices to compete with Intel Core 2 Duo	jmke	WebNews	0	13th July 2006 13:50
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 - Gaming and Workstation Benchmarks	jmke	WebNews	6	16th June 2006 23:38