Gaming, Witch Processor?

[bigdawgfoxx]

Yes, it will.

Good decisions on all your stuff...It will be about the same as mine

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by 4th gen+31 January 2004 - 06:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 31 January 2004 - 06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Wraith@31 January 2004 - 05:30
I don&#39;t know much about prcessors, but HL2 needs 800MHz but AMD&#39;s best goes to 400MHz. Is there a differance between how AMD and Intel determine things?

I think you may be confusing a few things here. You say that the maximum clock speed on AMD CPU&#39;s is 400MHz, however, what I think you mean (and correct me if I&#39;m horribly wrong) is that 400MHz is the highest FSB (Front Side Bus) speed on the AMD processors. The fastest AMD CPU&#39;s are approximately 2.2GHz, whereas the fastest Intel CPU&#39;s are 3+GHz. However, due to differences in the design philisophy between AMD and Intel, the AMD processors can keep up with the Intel&#39;s even when running at a lower clock speed. The moral of the story is that the clock speed of a processor is useful as a rule of thumb, however, it&#39;s not the the single-most important figure to be used when comparing processors. Did you read the article I linked to in my first post? [/b][/quote]
WRONG&#33;

The top AMD FSB is 1600MHz, I know this because I have one...

[Livy]

hes talking about 32 bit chips, not 64bit, and i thought they were 800fsb not 1600?

[DWk]

Originally posted by The Wraith@30 January 2004 - 21:06
Ok i was wounder witch is better for gaming, Athlon XP 2500 (well 3500) or Pentium 4 3.x+?

First off a couple of questions.... what do you mean on 3500? Are you gonna overclock?

Clocker might help you there before you do it (checking everything is fine, that is).

For gaming, I&#39;ve seen that AMD (especially Athlon XP&#39;s) perform better when it comes to gaming. It&#39;s not a big difference though. The difference actually resides on the money you are going to pay for the same performance. A stock P4 3.02 or 3.06 kicks a stock Athlon XP 2500 from here to Jupiter and back. So if you don&#39;t plan on overclocking and you are only considering a 2500+ and a p4 3.x (and money isn&#39;t "important"), then go with a p4. I would recommend getting a 3200+ because it would perform the same as a p4 3.x and it is much more cheaper

Let us know

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Livy@31 January 2004 - 14:41
hes talking about 32 bit chips, not 64bit, and i thought they were 800fsb not 1600?

I never saw him say that.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Mad Cat+31 January 2004 - 14:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mad Cat @ 31 January 2004 - 14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Livy@31 January 2004 - 14:41
hes talking about 32 bit chips, not 64bit, and i thought they were 800fsb not 1600?

I never saw him say that. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, I meant 32bit...Calm down

[_John_Lennon_]

What is up with you freaking ASUS Fanboys? Swear you guys all come out of the woodwork at night.

Now, I know the A7N8X-E Deluxe very well, and that looks like a good price at 113.99.

Except, if you will notice, my board, the 8RDA3+ is practically THE EXACT SAME, for only 86.00 8RDA3+
And if you get the Epox, you get better cooling, by means of an active northbridge cooling (has a fan and heatsink instead of just a heatsink with the ASUS&#39;s) as well as a heatsink on the southbridge chip, instead of none at all for the ASUS. You also get free rounded cables, which was a plus for me, seeing as how they maximize air flow in the case and I was going to buy some anyway. It is also known as a better overclocker than the ASUS&#39;s.

Oh, and you save about 15 dollars, but am I the only one that wants to save money?

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by 4th gen+31 January 2004 - 18:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 31 January 2004 - 18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Mad Cat@31 January 2004 - 14:59
<!--QuoteBegin-Livy

@31 January 2004 - 14:41
hes talking about 32 bit chips, not 64bit, and i thought they were 800fsb not 1600?

I never saw him say that.

Yeah, I meant 32bit...Calm down [/b][/quote]
Oh well, nevermind

[Smurfette]

Originally posted by 4th gen+31 January 2004 - 04:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 31 January 2004 - 04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Wraith@31 January 2004 - 03:12
Haven&#39;t read it yet, but thats a dam small mobo.

It was conceived/built < 1994 [/b][/quote]
Umm... with an AGP slot?
The BIOS is copyright 1999 as well.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Smurfette+31 January 2004 - 21:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Smurfette &#064; 31 January 2004 - 21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by 4th gen@31 January 2004 - 04:15
<!--QuoteBegin-The Wraith

@31 January 2004 - 03:12
Haven&#39;t read it yet, but thats a dam small mobo.

It was conceived/built < 1994

Umm... with an AGP slot?
The BIOS is copyright 1999 as well. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, according to Mad Cat, AGP was introduced in 1997, so I was pretty far off there
Although now Nogimics is saying 1996...