Hi guys,
I am buying a new processor for my system. I would like to know about your opinon as to which processor gives a better price to perfomance ratio. And why??
Hi guys,
I am buying a new processor for my system. I would like to know about your opinon as to which processor gives a better price to perfomance ratio. And why??
I'm sure you can find a 486 for free. You can't get a better price/performance ratio than that!
c_freak, I suggest that you make a bet with anonytmouse that you can find a processor with a better price/performance ratio. Make your bet $(x+2p), where x is the price of a processor that you have in mind, and p is your projected profit.
Then, I'll buy the processor for $x and give it to you for free. After anonytmouse pays up for losing the bet, you return me $(x+p), and come out $p richer. Deal?
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
> I am buying a new processor for my system
Which you neglect to mention. No point suggesting a processor if it doesn't fit in the socket which is on your motherboard.
> better price to perfomance ratio
Since benchmarks are often "cooked" in favour of particular application scenarios, which are you interested in?
High performance games, software development, image editing, movie editing, surf-and-email?
A question better asked at
http://motherboards.org/
http://www.overclockers.com/
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
I say AMD. Intel is over-hyped, over-priced, and over-rated.
With AMD you can get a chip for cheaper that will match or exceed an Intel of equal speed. Most hardware mags and sites I've seen recommend AMD not b/c they are faster, but simpy b/c for the price you cannot beat the performance. So price to performance ratio would definitely be AMD.
AMD has come a long way in a short time. My first AMD was the 40Mhz and it sucked. Ever since the P3 600 I've had an AMD of one type or another and they just scream. As of up to about a year ago they consistently outperformed Intel in games, have a better relationship with the gaming dev companies, and work hand in hand with developers so they can produce better games. AMD is all about games and they've been rewarded highly by the gamer community for it.
I've been running ASUS boards with AMD chips and NVidia cards for nearly 10 years and I've been more than happy with the results. AMD's floating point unit is so damn fast it's unbelievable. Intel is just now starting to catch up. And as far as 64-bit goes, nothing beats the AMD FX series. You will pay A LOT for this chip but it is one bad chunk of silicon. It will kick Intel's arse any day of the week.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 08-27-2006 at 12:32 PM.
Hi again!
Salem, i am interested in high system performance. I want my system to be fast. Apps should open reasonably fast. I do involve myself with multimedia (as part of my programming too) and games of course.
I have a 7 year old comp. I think the motherboard is too old to get a new processor.
Bubba, thanks for your comments Many of my friends are prejudicing me with AMD with similar comments like yours. I still have an P3 500 Mhz . Which one do you think is better, AMD 64 X2 3800+ or AMD 64 4000+?
laserlight!! do you run any business management classes? I would be glad to join
The X2 3800+.Which one do you think is better, AMD 64 X2 3800+ or AMD 64 4000+?
If you understand what you're doing, you're not learning anything.
Is that the 64 bit dual core chip? I hate all these stupid product names, they should have some sort of standard for naming processors. 3800+ means its like 2GHz as well doesn't it. Stupid marketing people....Originally Posted by itsme86
Yeah AMD really messed up their chip names by getting the great idea to sep the actual freq of the chip from the number designation. Annoying.
Although AMD is cheaper and equal quality of Intel chips, they don't really have much in the way of laptop processors. AMD chips tend to run very hot, so I would only recommend AMD for a desktop computer.
My Athon 64 3000+ is roughly 2Ghz. A 3800+ would probably be 2.5-2.7Ghz.Originally Posted by Perspective
AMDs actually run cooler than Intel chips, as far as I know.Originally Posted by joeprogrammer
M.Eng Computer Engineering CandidateB.Sc Computer Science
Robotics and graphics enthusiast.
Here's a chip heat comparison:AMDs actually run cooler than Intel chips, as far as I know.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2026&p=3
AMD does not have anymore heat issues. AMD is also making chips for laptops that far surpass Intel. I abandoned Intel when they abandoned me the end user by overpricing their chips and using bad marketing tactics in the 90's to market chips with nearly no diff in them.Although AMD is cheaper and equal quality of Intel chips, they don't really have much in the way of laptop processors. AMD chips tend to run very hot, so I would only recommend AMD for a desktop computer.
Originally Posted by psychopath
I just googled it, the 3800+ is two 2GHz cores. BOOOOO for that naming convention.
That is a little messed up isn't it. Maybe they're trying to say that it runs like a 3800Mhz processor (if it were an Intel)..or something?Originally Posted by Perspective
M.Eng Computer Engineering CandidateB.Sc Computer Science
Robotics and graphics enthusiast.