yeah, at that price point AMD is competitive. The problem for them is they have nothing at all at higher price points D: We need some competition in the CPU arena to keep Intel from cranking out another netburst or something

mahnini

United States6862 Posts

February 04 2009 05:22 GMT

On February 04 2009 14:12 rushz0rz wrote:

Show nested quote +

I looked up benchmarks and pricing, and from what I found the Phenom 9550 series did better than the E8400 and E8500 and was cheaper. Is that wrong?

the phenom is definitely worse than the e8x00 for gaming. if you aren't going to do much gaming it wont really matter

of course you could drop an extra $30 on the processor and get a phenom ii !!
though if you could drop another $30 i would still get the e8400 and upgrade to 4850

rushz0rz

Canada5300 Posts

February 04 2009 05:25 GMT

mahnini

United States6862 Posts

February 04 2009 05:27 GMT

the only difference between the e8400 and e8500 is the multiplier this doesnt really matter too much. as a result the e8500 is .1ghz faster or something. save the $20 or put it toward a better graphics card instead.

are you building this yourself or customizing it?

Fontong

United States6454 Posts

February 04 2009 05:29 GMT

Ah ok, I was thinking that the phenom 9550 was more expensive that it actually is. I was wondering why you would get it over something like the Q6600.

What is the price on the processor you are buying? I'm having trouble getting anything on google.

Edit: but yeah as mahnini says graphics card matters more than CPU for gaming. imo it is better to get a quad core at this point though in order to be more 'future proof'

mahnini

United States6862 Posts

February 04 2009 05:31 GMT

q6600 has low clock speed and this affects it in games, it also has the old 65nm architecture, though i guess that doesn't matter unless power usage or overclocking matters to you. besides i think the new phenom ii 920 are actually cheaper than the q6600 on newegg and actually perform a lot better.

rushz0rz

Canada5300 Posts

February 04 2009 05:32 GMT

#10

Fontong

United States6454 Posts

February 04 2009 05:33 GMT

#11

^^ack premade computers just kill you in terms of price. My computer is slightly better than the second one for about 700$(i made it custom)

On February 04 2009 14:31 mahnini wrote:
q6600 has low clock speed and this affects it in games, it also has the old 65nm architecture, though i guess that doesn't matter unless power usage or overclocking matters to you. besides i think the new phenom ii 920 are actually cheaper than the q6600 on newegg and actually perform a lot better.

but the Q6600 overclocks to 3.0ghz on air with a decent fan, this is one of the reasons I think it is pretty good.

rushz0rz

Canada5300 Posts

February 04 2009 05:35 GMT

#12

Fontong

United States6454 Posts

February 04 2009 05:38 GMT

#13

Do you have the ability to build the computer yourself? You will save a bundle.

rushz0rz

Canada5300 Posts

February 04 2009 05:39 GMT

#14

rushz0rz

Canada5300 Posts

February 04 2009 05:40 GMT

#15

Fontong

United States6454 Posts

February 04 2009 05:44 GMT

#16

On February 04 2009 14:40 rushz0rz wrote:

Show nested quote +

Hmmm. I did put my current PC together myself, although I'm sure the $50 assembly is worth it because it's done professionally and what if I screwed up? I'd also be excited about getting on it asaply and playing around, of course.

After a quick look at the parts for those computers could could probably make them for under $800, Imo that amount of savings is worth it. I would just look up some guides on the internet for things you are uncertain of how to do.

rushz0rz

Canada5300 Posts

February 04 2009 05:47 GMT

#17

mahnini

United States6862 Posts

February 04 2009 05:48 GMT

#18

if i were in your position i would definitely go for the phenom ii 920 because high end gaming doesnt matter too much to me. however, none of these quads can really compare to the e8x00 series stock in terms of fps for gaming but it's really up to you. the e8400 has the potential to be outdated a lot faster once more games utilize 4 cores but as of right now i think it's your best bet.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-1680x1050,818.html