Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am planning to buy this system, probably in the next few days.

I have been waiting all summer and the moment seems right

What you guys think of it in order to play LOCKON, FC and eventually BS with great performances?

 

intel core 2 duo E6400 @2.13 G\1066\2M\S775

Mother board Asus P4 S775 P5N32-SLI deluxe NF4 PCIE SLI

2 Gigs of DDR2 800 Mhz OCZ memory

one video card Nvidia BFG PCIE GF7 7950GX2 1024M

600W power supply Thermaltake

Harddrives, DVD, etc...

 

thanks for your advice

 

JEFX

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

In DCS I fly jets with thousands of pounds of thrust...

In real life I fly a humble Cessna Hawx XP II with 210 HP :D

Posted

I think I want some of your spare money!

 

 

The benchmarks I've seen still give the AMD 64-bit dual-core chips the advantage over the new Intel chips in games. Neither REALLY use both cores, simply because most games (certainly Lomac) are single-threaded . . . . but AMD are still in front. If it's a gaming machine only and you want raw performance, then take the AMD.

 

If it needs to be a professional machine as well, running multiple-threaded applications, then it seems that the Intel offering will probably have the edge.

Posted

Is someone planning on doing some overclocking? :crash:

 

Be sure to get the ASUS P5N32-SLI SE motherboard.

(The P5N32-SLI Deluxe (without SE) doesnt support Conroes.)

 

There might some issues with P5N32-SLI and OCZ: OCZ Forum

 

I havent seen anything to indicate the 7950GX2 gives any performance gain over 7900GTX.

Guest IguanaKing
Posted
I think I want some of your spare money!

 

 

The benchmarks I've seen still give the AMD 64-bit dual-core chips the advantage over the new Intel chips in games. Neither REALLY use both cores, simply because most games (certainly Lomac) are single-threaded . . . . but AMD are still in front. If it's a gaming machine only and you want raw performance, then take the AMD.

 

If it needs to be a professional machine as well, running multiple-threaded applications, then it seems that the Intel offering will probably have the edge.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/page6.html#games

Guest IguanaKing
Posted

Look again, Brit. ;) Even the bottom of the barrel in the Conroe line, the E6600, is faster at its stock 2.4GHz than an FX62 OCd to 3.00GHz in one of those game bench marks. The FX62 at stock clock speed, can't keep up with it in any of those bench marks. The best part is that the E6600 is about $300.00 cheaper. :P

Posted
Look again, Brit. ;) Even the bottom of the barrel in the Conroe line, the E6600, is faster at its stock 2.4GHz than an FX62 OCd to 3.00GHz in one of those game bench marks. The FX62 at stock clock speed, can't keep up with it in any of those bench marks. The best part is that the E6600 is about $300.00 cheaper. :P

 

It is as well.

 

 

Oh well - ignore previous comments then :P

Guest IguanaKing
Posted

Heh...its cool, mate. You might have been originally thinking of the Pentium Ds. When those came out, I was very disappointed in what they offered...not even sure why Intel wasted anybody's time with them frankly. :D

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...