tank_rider Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 I'd definately go down the A64 route if you intesnd to game, they consistently beat higher priced intels in gaming tests. The specs of processors listed previously in this thread arent correct as there are several different core versions at each speed (core revisions effectlively mean differeing amounts of cache, different manufacturing scales and differeing built in instruction sets, read SSE, SSE2 etc) and therefore perform slightly differently. If you do not plan to overclock the PC at all (which by the sounds of it you dont as you havent got the confidence to build it up yourself) then the core type shouldnt worry you too much, unless you plan on having more than 2 gigs of RAM (which i doubt). In terms of spec i would recommend: A64 3500+ (venice core of possible) Make sure its a socket 939 processor as the older socket 754 is being phased out. 1Gb RAM PC3200 or higher (2x512Mb so they run in dual channel giving better memory bandwidth)(try and get something other than generic or value RAM) 6600GT or better (i am a fan of ATI cards, but for value for money the 6600GT beats everything around its pricepoint hands down) At least a 120gig hard drive, the make isnt too critical, although samsung spinpoints are probably the quietist around. The main factors with a HD are the cache and the speed. 7200rpm is the standard these days, and you should be looking for 8Mb cache to get good performance. I would also go for a SATA rather than an IDE drive as they have faster transfer rates. DVD writer, no reason not to get one as they are pretty cheap now. Dual layer is worth a look as you can get up to 9.6Gb on a dual layer disc. Finally dont skimp on a cheap power supply as they have the tendancy to blow up taking all the rest of your pc with them. You should be looking for a 350 watt or more to power that, which should cost upwards of £40. something like this from redjag would be plenty good enough. Price £975 I would price a system up on ebuyer but it is uber slow due to me being on ntl in the notts/leicester area :( That system should be future proof for games for a good couple of years. When you find something post a link just to double check before you buy (theres nothing worse than buying something only to fin you could have got something better for cheaper elsewhere, or that you have a massive bottleneck causing i to run slow and need upgrading. If you want any more advice give me a shout over msn (andrewhill101@hotmail.com) :lol: My current system is: AMD athlon XP 2600+ @ 2.4Ghz cooled by a thermalright SI-97 with 92mm panaflo Abit NF7-S motherboard 2x512Mb OCZ premier RAM @ 2.5-3-3-7 timings Radeon 9700 PRO with arctic cooling silencer 80Gb Maxtor plus 9 7200rpm HD with 8Mb cache LG 8x DVD+-R/RW/RAM Termaltake butterfly 480Watt power supply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 NTL and eByuer just doens't work. I thought the site was just shit, but it works fine at home... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 NTL and eByuer just doens't work. I thought the site was just shit, but it works fine at home... ← it kinda works in spits and spats, you just have to be really persistant and patient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 it kinda works in spits and spats, you just have to be really persistant and patient. ← f**k that. If they want my business they can f**king well sort it out. If not, then I'll just use one of their competitors :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 But its nothing to do with EBuyer its just NTL's useless DNS servers. There was loads of problems with TF and NTL ages ago :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onza-Ash Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 i thought AMD were only better right up the higher end...the FX series put Intel 6months behind.... but the other non FX chipsets are about the same..or atleast i think Ash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 i thought AMD were only better right up the higher end...the FX series put Intel 6months behind.... but the other non FX chipsets are about the same..or atleast i think Ash ← On a price to price comparison, nion ALL AMD chips are better and/or cheaper than the equivilant Intel. Intel de well due to most average joe's wanting "intel inside". Also the Intel P4 range is massively too hot needing pretty beasty cooling to run at lowish temps. The dothan processor cores found in the laptops with centrino processors has to be the way for intel to go as they are a much better design and run a hell of a lot cooler. AMD on the other hand have nice cool running chips, the AXP and A64's use a lot less voltage and resulting in cooler temps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 nigh on :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 nigh on :turned: ← i prefer my way of writing it (Y) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocktrials Posted June 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 thing is, i want amd 64 for gaming, yet amd worried games in a years time will reccomend like 2ghz speed and i'll be there with 2.2ghz, and thats what pushes me to intel with like 3.4ghz.....im puzzled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tank_rider Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 thing is, i want amd 64 for gaming, yet amd worried games in a years time will reccomend like 2ghz speed and i'll be there with 2.2ghz, and thats what pushes me to intel with like 3.4ghz.....im puzzled. ← Forget what GHz they are working at, those speeds are only useful for comparing between processors in the same range. If you game, an amd IS better than the same priced intel, and will still be better when the new games come along, no matter what spec they say it needs. At the moment the top fo the line amd FX55 runs at 2.6GHz or so, yet it beats the fants of pretty much all the intel offerings. This is (as has already been said in here) AMD processors perform more operations per clock cycle, i don't know what the comparison is, but for the same processor speed the amd will be MUCH faster than an intel. The equivilant AMD to the intel 3.2GHz would be something like an athlon XP 3200+, or an athlon 64 3200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocktrials Posted June 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 ok cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 The equivilant AMD to the intel 3.2GHz would be something like an athlon XP 3200+, or an athlon 64 3200. ← Yeah, it's a stupid naming system though, 'cos the A64 3200+ (especially the s939 version) is waaaay faster than the AXp 3200+, which is about the same as a 3.2GHz P4 in most tasks. But yeah, forget about the actual clock speed of the AMD's and go by the PR rating (E.g 3500+) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.