BF2S Forums Help Cougar Build a New Machine.

jaymz9350 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

intel 3.0ghz, was planning on getting AM2, but then came along conroe, i used AMD systems b4, they were better than intel i will say, but conroe changed that

so your telling people they are stupid to consider AMD now when the intels will beat them but like i said before you spent more money on a crappier cpu that you have now? kinda like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

err reason i got an intel cpu was at the time i already had DDR2 memory... coz sum1 gave some ram to me as a gift... thats why im running intel. theres also one more reason i run intel cpus: overclockability.

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

well fierce baby your are not anoying me or stuff like that. I dont even care, because my rigs atm are pretty fast and have enough power for upcoming games.

@cyborg: wich intel cpu do you run? the only cpu wich is a real oc-wonder is the D805, otherwise all AMDs are better for ocing imho.

@Topic: look at the poll, AMD ftw, burn intel burn

i currently run P4 3.0ghz, had it for like a year now its running at 3.6ghz stock voltage

jaymz9350 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

fon|sl4y3r wrote:

well fierce baby your are not anoying me or stuff like that. I dont even care, because my rigs atm are pretty fast and have enough power for upcoming games.

@cyborg: wich intel cpu do you run? the only cpu wich is a real oc-wonder is the D805, otherwise all AMDs are better for ocing imho.

@Topic: look at the poll, AMD ftw, burn intel burn

i currently run P4 3.0ghz, had it for like a year now its running at 3.6ghz stock voltage

and that's you idea of great overclock ability. i can get a 600mhz oc on stock volts too, and on my cpu that's a larger performance gain.

i can push it to 4.2 ghz if i wanted too, but im selling my cpu later so i dont want to have any chance of it dying.

well, I guess we have hijacked this thread enough. Maybe we should open up a new thread about AMD vs. Intel, any volunteers?

jaymz9350 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

and that's you idea of great overclock ability. i can get a 600mhz oc on stock volts too, and on my cpu that's a larger performance gain.

i can push it to 4.2 ghz if i wanted too, but im selling my cpu later so i dont want to have any chance of it dying.

still that's the same oc i can get out of mine if i wanted to also( by percentage 40%)so i don't see where intel has this great oc'ing you speak of, both brands oc well

intel cpus have the capability of reaching 5ghz where AMD cpus hit around 3.5 ghz tops

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

i can push it to 4.2 ghz if i wanted too, but im selling my cpu later so i dont want to have any chance of it dying.

still that's the same oc i can get out of mine if i wanted to also( by percentage 40%)so i don't see where intel has this great oc'ing you speak of, both brands oc well

intel cpus have the capability of reaching 5ghz where AMD cpus hit around 3.5 ghz tops

apples to oranges there bub. with the cpu's we're comparing the amd's are more efficient so a 3.5 ghz amd is as good as if not better than a 5 ghz intel

It's amazing how painful it is for some people to admit that their beloved AMD has taken a severe kick to the groin.  You can deny it, you can bury your head in the sand, but you can not escape it. 

It was pretty much accepted months ago when AMDs AM2 platform showed such dismal performance increases that Conroe was likely to take the performance crown.  Now those suspicions are becoming fact as more and more tests are providing concrete data.  Go read some tech news people.  It's not debatable. 

I've been running AMD chips since my second rig back in 1995.  My first (and only) Intel CPU was a 486 SX running at 25Mhz with a whopping 8Kb level 1 cache.  I've been proudly sporting the AMD logo for 12 years and am currently running an FX60 so don't call ME an intel fanboy. 

One thing is looking certain though, my next CPU will be an Intel.  I look forward to see what AMD can pull out of their hat 2 years from now but in the meantime they are the new underdog.  Simple as that.

jaymz9350 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

still that's the same oc i can get out of mine if i wanted to also( by percentage 40%)so i don't see where intel has this great oc'ing you speak of, both brands oc well

intel cpus have the capability of reaching 5ghz where AMD cpus hit around 3.5 ghz tops

apples to oranges there bub. with the cpu's we're comparing the amd's are more efficient so a 3.5 ghz amd is as good as if not better than a 5 ghz intel

If he has a prescott @ 4.2 being efficient doesnt mean jack. A prescott at high clock speeds can really fly!

A really good computer would be


A mid end conroe (not so pricey!)
Geforce 7900GT(270$ or something)
2gb DDR2 800
etc


With a good HDD cooling etc the rig could be probably one of the best, and with conroes "overclocking potential" It would even be better. You could probably get all that stuff and more for under 2000$ , Unless youre one of those people who need 400$ displays, 80$ keyboards and 300$ headphones....


And about ATI, Ive owned two cards from them and both have really let me down.... catalyst drivers suck, and ATI has poor performance , its only the x850XT PE and x1900XTX that perform good, rest of ATIs cards just suck and are overpriced. Nvidia supposedly performs faster and stuff, and is cheaper ( a 7900GT is a lot cheaper than an x1900 and performs around the same) 


I didnt pick porn, screws your computer up if you arent careful.

Last edited by MECtallica (2006-07-26 17:43:45)

jaymz9350 wrote:

Canterwood wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

apples to oranges there bub. with the cpu's we're comparing the amd's are more efficient so a 3.5 ghz amd is as good as if not better than a 5 ghz intel

If he has a prescott @ 4.2 being efficient doesnt mean jack. A prescott at high clock speeds can really fly!

yeah it still does cause a a64 @ 2.8 will still beat a presshot even @4.2

2.4ghz conroe can kick a 2.8ghz amd in the ass.

ShotYourSix wrote:

MECtallica wrote:

A really good computer would be

And about ATI, Ive owned two cards from them and both have really let me down.... catalyst drivers suck, and ATI has poor performance , its only the x850XT PE and x1900XTX that perform good, rest of ATIs cards just suck and are overpriced. Nvidia supposedly performs faster and stuff, and is cheaper ( a 7900GT is a lot cheaper than an x1900 and performs around the same)

Yes.  By all means listen to a guy who says:

ATIs cards just suck and are overpriced. Nvidia supposedly performs faster and stuff

This guy DEFINITELY knows what he is talking about.  I highly recommend his advice.

fanyboys Nvidia is best for BF2, ATI is best for GRAW and oblivion, stuff w/ HDR.

ShotYourSix wrote:

Heh....I'm no fan boy.  I just don't like seeing people talk shit unless they can talk some sense into it. 

i know your not im talking about mectallica lmao

jaymz9350 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

jaymz9350 wrote:

yeah it still does cause a a64 @ 2.8 will still beat a presshot even @4.2

2.4ghz conroe can kick a 2.8ghz amd in the ass.

what does conroe have to do with a presshot and an AMD? oh right conroe is the only word in your dictionary. i have never said conroe doesn't beat the current AMD cpu's, but it should it's next gen tech

its intel's 8th gen... by your logic K8 should beat conroe since its newer gen tech than prescott.