EPTHere are the specs:
- Core 2 Duo T6600 - 2.2ghz
- 4 Gb Ram
- nvidia gt 240m 1066mhz i think?
will this run it alright? or what
Post your Rig [Will it run SC2? - Page 61
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
StukA
United States64 Posts
Here are the specs: - Core 2 Duo T6600 - 2.2ghz - 4 Gb Ram - nvidia gt 240m 1066mhz i think? will this run it alright? or what | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 06 2010 16:17 ghermination wrote: Also, is anyone else excited about the core i3 release tomorrow? I'm going to spec and put together a build with my friend using the i3 so i'll post about how it oc's and whatnot. The i3 looks good price/performance, but the lack of 4 actual cores makes me sad as i want faster transition to better threaded applications, although the HT makes up for it just a bit. I do post on 3dguru why? I would love a i3 for a htpc low watt intrigrated gpu with a dynamic tpd for each core sounds wonderful even if intel's gpu doesn't do perfectly in the image quality postprocessing area my tv can make up for that. Only nvidia has IGP that does "perfect" post processing but lol not enough ppl use nvidia's igps on desktops - their ion platform which is bad for htpc when you want to stream something that's flash, well adobes beta's flash player kind of makes up for it. i3 has lower prices so that is good i just wish i didn't have to pay for the igp if i wasn't going to use it lol so i don't get the higher end i3 i5 arrasomethingdile chips that are over 125 bucks US. esp the ones that cost teh same as the i5 750 | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 06 2010 16:47 StukA wrote: Ok I just got my laptop today, its pretty decent got it for $803 (thats with shipping and tax). Here are the specs: - Core 2 Duo T6600 - 2.2ghz - 4 Gb Ram - nvidia gt 240m 1066mhz i think? will this run it alright? or what 240m is half decent T6600 is a dated cpu but it's not a power saver so it should be fine. I would guess it would manage quite well | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
Should run SC2 easily on any 17' laptop | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
with the prices currently there are 2 options for "gamers": 1. get a i5 if you plan to go hard on the overclocking. thats where they really shine 2. get a phenom II for evryone else. | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On January 07 2010 00:03 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: dont get a i3 .overpriced dualcores ftl. get a phenom II system with wayway more power for the same price. if you go for gay fanboism get a i5. with the prices currently there are 2 options for "gamers": 1. get a i5 if you plan to go hard on the overclocking. thats where they really shine 2. get a phenom II for evryone else. l0l0l0l0l0l0l In one sentence you tell us not to be fanboys while you blindly ignore the fact that we don't even know how the new i5 and i3's will perform, and that the current i5 and i7's rape anything AMD has to offer. I'm sure when you were 13 or whatever and netburst architecture was around and p4's were getting raped by amd-64's, it must have felt really cool and artsy to buy that nice black and green processor. But now it's back to how it's always been: Intel is slightly more expensive with much better overall performance, AMD is slightly less expensive with much better performance in fps per dollar. A $179 i5 750 can outperform a 955 or 965BE by like 30%+, not counting overclocking. And, oh wait, are you saying that the $100 Calypso 550BE is a better price than the $89 low end i3 systems, Which will outperform it nearly undoubtedly? I think you're buying into the megahertz myth a little. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 07 2010 00:54 ghermination wrote: l0l0l0l0l0l0l In one sentence you tell us not to be fanboys while you blindly ignore the fact that we don't even know how the new i5 and i3's will perform, and that the current i5 and i7's rape anything AMD has to offer. I'm sure when you were 13 or whatever and netburst architecture was around and p4's were getting raped by amd-64's, it must have felt really cool and artsy to buy that nice black and green processor. But now it's back to how it's always been: Intel is slightly more expensive with much better overall performance, AMD is slightly less expensive with much better performance in fps per dollar. A $179 i5 750 can outperform a 955 or 965BE by like 30%+, not counting overclocking. And, oh wait, are you saying that the $100 Calypso 550BE is a better price than the $89 low end i3 systems, Which will outperform it nearly undoubtedly? I think you're buying into the megahertz myth a little. - Some benchs for the i3 have been released already and i'm sry it isn't THAT amazing especially for this price. - They are more expensive than 89$ atm Also stop saying bullshit the i5 750 isn't 30% better than the 955 or 965 rofl. They are really close. The guy that you quoted did a somewhat biased post but don't quote him for saying the same kind of bs that's retarded. Imo if you want a cheap comp -> Athlon II x2 x3 x4 If you want a gaming comp: 955 or i5 depending of your budget, if you want to OC and if you are an AMD or Intel fan boy. i3 ? If it doesn't get cheaper it is almost useless except for snobby HTPC. Oh and please don't say " but you can OC your i3 " because it is retarded to buy fanrad whereas you could just get the i5 750 instead lol. OC is overrated. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On January 07 2010 00:54 ghermination wrote: l0l0l0l0l0l0l In one sentence you tell us not to be fanboys while you blindly ignore the fact that we don't even know how the new i5 and i3's will perform, and that the current i5 and i7's rape anything AMD has to offer. I'm sure when you were 13 or whatever and netburst architecture was around and p4's were getting raped by amd-64's, it must have felt really cool and artsy to buy that nice black and green processor. But now it's back to how it's always been: Intel is slightly more expensive with much better overall performance, AMD is slightly less expensive with much better performance in fps per dollar. A $179 i5 750 can outperform a 955 or 965BE by like 30%+, not counting overclocking. And, oh wait, are you saying that the $100 Calypso 550BE is a better price than the $89 low end i3 systems, Which will outperform it nearly undoubtedly? I think you're buying into the megahertz myth a little. gz. in one post you outed yourself: as a aggressive prick a wannabe "I KNOW ALL" nerd a fag with no manners non overclocked the i5 and 955 are pretty much equal in games. evry single benchmark out there shows that. but the amd system costs less and has a socket which will be used for quite some time(hi bulldozer) ,while the i5 has that shitty crap socket . btw for 65€ you can get a 720be (with a decent chance to unlock the 4th core). a i3 is a decent solution for a htpc or a pure office pc. for evrything else its useless. argueing that a i3 is good for anything but that is simply bullshit. i dont give a fuck about brands. but its pretty much FACT that you get the best bang for the buck (esp in games) with phenoms right now. cheap mobos,future ready socket,low price,high game performance. but if your into hard overclocking the i5 has more potential and might be worth the additional cost. thats it. if the i5 had a decent socket and would cost less the whole story would look different. but thats not the case. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
The turbo boost that comes with the i5 750 really makes a difference when it comes apps that aren't optimized for quad cores. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 07 2010 01:28 FragKrag wrote: Actually in a lot of benchmarks the i5 ends up outperforming the AMD 965 by 20%-30%... The turbo boost that comes with the i5 750 really makes a difference when it comes apps that aren't optimized for quad cores. Well can you provide links ? In all the bench i have read they have ~ the same results. ( 3dmax 2010, Cinema 4D R11, MinGW, Avidemux, ArmA II, GTA4 etc ... ) | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On January 07 2010 01:28 FragKrag wrote: Actually in a lot of benchmarks the i5 ends up outperforming the AMD 965 by 10%-20%... sometimes maxing out at around 30% The turbo boost that comes with the i5 750 really makes a difference when it comes apps that aren't optimized for quad cores. mostly in office/vid/etc applications. but in games thats a different story. and i dont say the phenom BEATS the i5 always.but is usually equal. no question, if you are into video editing,3drendering or whatever like that go for the i5 or better the i7.they beat the phenoms there pretty often(i5) / always (i7) but for the standart gamer that wants a speedy cpu that will make him happy a long time go for a phenom 955/965. esp since a nice mobo+cpu+4gb ddr3 ram cost not even 275€. add a 4870/5770/260gtx and you can play evrything on the market right now without any probs for under 400€. sell the card once the new 3xx series is affordable(or thx to the 3xx the 58xx are cheaper), get a new cooling solution to overlock the cpu and you will have a combo that will run anything for a very very low price. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 07 2010 01:32 FragKrag wrote: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272741-28-truth-phenom Ok time to review ( too bored to read more than the two first ) First test: http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/page6.html The only thing where the i5 is clearly better is the consumption and Winrar ( lol who cares of winrar ). The performances are quite close in everything else like +5-10% max but definitly not +30% lol Second test: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16 Again pretty much the same performances ( i5 has an edge on 3Dmark but who cares this soft is just like a dick meter contest ) Edge in Adobe Photoshop too. Also the I5 seems to be better for Far cry 2 but if you look closely the 965 had better FPS in the first test of techspot in high quality than in this bench in medium ( Something wrong there... ) Ok so basicly 5-10% edge in some softs but i can find some where the 965 is ahead because i think that the tests you provided aren't really fair. Take a look to MinGW and 3DMAx for example: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/780-7/intel-core-i5-i3-32nm.html http://www.hardware.fr/articles/780-8/intel-core-i5-i3-32nm.html Avidemux: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/780-9/intel-core-i5-i3-32nm.html So basicly that 30+% is complete bullshit. 5-10% for some softwares ( and the 965 is better for some too ). Overall they are really close. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 07 2010 02:12 Boblion wrote: Oh and fuck benchs with winrar seriously. This is a shitty soft not optimized for Quads. NOT VALID argument yet lolololololol there are plenty of benchmark tools that people still use that are optimized for 1 thread, which when both products you compare are the same number of cores is very valid example of performance, as each core in a quad core 3.2ghz cpu is clocked at 3.2 and their performance can be measured separately when done in a single threaded operation. Alot of programs are not optimized for Quad core and most that are are very poorly implemented for threads more then 2 or 3. i5 vs 955 965 in games strictly in games they are very similar i wouldn't hold one against the other too much in fact i would favor the 965 over the i5 on avg and the 955 just because it's cheaper to build a 955 rig when looking at the graphs on hardopc were the 965 tends to give a higher avg fps with less rate of change from 1 sec to the next. But that's so minimal i wouldn't even bother But so few of us just boot up computers just for games Out side of games you know the shit people do with their computers that don't boot up straight to sc2 alpha builds lol i5 easily out performs 965 955. Don't forget that it also tramples them in performance per watt and idle performance which if you can't afford the 300 dollar electric bill i'm used to is a nice thing. Don't think that is realiveant well it's because of their ultra low leak gates that their TDP is very fluent and can shift all the power from 4 cores down to 2 and thus give that OC that is called turbo mode. Note that turbo mode kills the power efficiency though although with the 140w and 125w TDP on the 965 lol like that matters much. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 07 2010 07:07 Virtue wrote: Alot of programs are not optimized for Quad core and most that are are very poorly implemented for threads more then 2 or 3. Well it was a rant about Winrar because it is probably one of the worst. Athlon II x2 > x4, Intel E beating Q etc ... i know it is all about the freq but come on... they can't release a new updated version ? I mean that's a small software, not some sort of huge 20Gb game developed before the massive sellings of quads and impossible to patch ( at least they have some excuses ) Just release a new version lol. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
tEkK
United States184 Posts
GPU - 8800 GTS RAM - 6 GB I bought this 2 years ago. CPU is, of course, outdated  . I will probably need a new GPU also. | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=12 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=13 the i5 can routinely outpower the 965 by quite a bit on many games at stock speed. Though it loses to the 965 a bit as well, I think it is notable that the i5 completely demolished the 965 in DA: Origins, a game that is known for being better optimized for quad cores The new intel cores also outpower the AMD x4s and x3s along with the E8600, so maybe Hyperthreading isn't as bad as people say it is? Edit: I focused more on Dragon Age than on other games because Dragon Age seems to represent a trend of games being able to shift away from optimization for dual cores to optimization for quad cores. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Yup the Athlon II x4 are quite bad for games or softwares relying a lot on L3, freq and not on the extra cores. Basicly it is x2 245 = x3 435 >= x4 620. Quite sad but it might be slightly better with newer games ( those procs will be completly obsolete before the release of the first well optimised games for quads though lol ). I think the x3 435 is the most interesting atm because it has the same performance overall in games and is cheaper. | ||
| ||
