AMD 6000+ X2, 8800 GTS 640MB, 2GB Corsair 6400 DHX, Abit AN9

SlaveToSilence · Post by **SlaveToSilence** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:46 pm

just ordered:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ 3.00GHz (Socket AM2)

EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS SuperClocked 640MB
(575mhz/1350mhz/1700mhz)

Corsair 2GB DDR2 XMS2 DHX PC2-6400C4DHX TwinX (2x1GB)
4-4-4-12

Abit Fatal1ty AN9 32X SLi DDR2

to replace:

Abit AN8 SLI
3800 X2 (939)
1GB corsair 3700 platinum
Gainward bliss 7800 512mb
500gb samsung spinpoint T (replacement slave)

rollover:
WD 10,000RPM 74GB raptor (master)
Creative audigy 2
Scythe infinity
Antec phantom 500watt

Antec p180 case

is this a good combination? is there anything im missing? can anyone spot any bottlenecks?

was a bit of a spur-of-the-moment order, i hope i made the right decissions? some second opinions would be great

might not be too late to replace any of the above items? or are they the best for the money

Thanks very much everyone!

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:55 pm

AMD fanboy?

nothing wrong with that. quite the heavy gamer if you're using all that stuff. the only downside is that AMD really isn't up to snuff compared to Intel now..sure AMDs have kick, but their numbers aren't much.

aside from my opinion, its a good build.

ryboto · Post by **ryboto** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:20 pm

why is he a fanboy for buying a 6000? At stock speeds it outperforms or matches similarly priced Core2's. If he isn't going to overclock, what's wrong with it? Not only that, AM2 is going to be able to work with Phenoms, so, he's bought into a solid platform. My only argument against AMD's high end is the power draw. Since their highest performing parts are still 90nm, the TDPs are still 125W.

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:28 pm

what i meant by fanboy was having an AMD, and staying with AMD for the next build.

i never said there was anything wrong with it...calm down.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:02 pm

bonestonne wrote:AMD fanboy?

nothing wrong with that. quite the heavy gamer if you're using all that stuff. the only downside is that AMD really isn't up to snuff compared to Intel now..sure AMDs have kick, but their numbers aren't much.

aside from my opinion, its a good build.

most games show an increase of 10% with a max clocked c2d compared to a low level amd chip. New games built in 2006 show less than that %.

you should actually have an idea about numbers before posting.

8800gts at 2007 resolutions is held back by only the 8800gts. the processor means almost nothing. 1920x1200 is the new standard for video. the cpu doesnt do anything at all and one can spend 100 dollars to get the same performance of a 320 dollar cpu.

ryboto · Post by **ryboto** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:19 pm

bonestonne wrote:what i meant by fanboy was having an AMD, and staying with AMD for the next build.

i never said there was anything wrong with it...calm down.

Using the word "fanboy" is not something I associate with friendliness. The word implies blind faith and ignorance, while I'll admit to preferring amd, I would be lying if I didn't admit to considering an Q6600 if I had the money. I would just prefer it if people stopped using the word, i've yet to see it used in a positive manner.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:13 pm

I have four AMD computers, because they're cheap and good enough, and two Intel rigs because I need 'em for harder/different stuff. Believe it or not, neither is a gaming machine; the differences are negligible, something like a percent or two, and it's only when the machine is CPU limited, so when the games' FPS are already ridiculously high. Current processors are so far ahead of GPUs when gaming it's startling.

But I will chime in with the 125W envelope being a deal-breaker. I have an X2 6000 in my test bench and it will overheat and shut down without the CNPS 9500 AM2 running at a full clip; which is why my gaming computer uses an X2 5600...2.8GHZ (using the coveted even multiplier) 2MB cache, and it overclocks well, too, and quietly.

Mind you, this gaming machine doesn't spend all day on, and power consumption isn't an issue, which is why it's got SLI 8800 GTSs...I'd use HD 2900s but for the facts that they're FUCKING LOUD and I don't have a spare Crossfire motherboard...

Lanx · Post by **Lanx** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:23 pm

i have a kn9 in my gf's computer, overclocks better than the m2n that i have. kn9 is the 570 version of the an9 basically, good mb imo.

joelmusicman · Post by **joelmusicman** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:49 pm

Until they start making true dual core GPUs...

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:48 pm

if you really wanted to argue between AMD and intel, you just can't...i prefer Intel due to its technology...i used to have an older AMD system...one of the earlier Athlons, compared to an equivelent P3 or P4 [423 P4] the AMDs were much faster yes, but they also ran very hot. now you see AMD copying Intel basically, because they've stopped using pressed ceramic, and they're all plastic CPUs with the die on top [for single cores] once dual cores were put out, AMD again copied Intel, with the IHS...they could have just had a larger die with the two cores, or a really cool looking CPU with two visible dies [i'd get one, that would look amazing.

but now you see intel with the Core 2 Duo, and when you try to argue x2 vs C2D, what are you arguing? a larger L2 cache, and the difference between a southbridge or a different fsb.

what numbers am i missing?

if you're really into stoking one or the other, where's AMDs quad core?

the only reason i don't still have an AMD is because i have to DDR ram. i have DDR2, and SD, and RD...no DDR. i have an Athlon XP 1.75ghz CPU and board upstairs, but no RAM for it. my first Athlon system i gave to a friend because they messed up their Athlon [which is why i have the CPU] and the board was given to me.

NyteOwl · Post by **NyteOwl** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:27 pm

Have you checked Crucial for DDR?

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:02 pm

joelmusicman wrote:Until they start making true dual core GPUs...

GPUs are already massively parallel. The 2900 has 320 "cores" called stream processors. There is no point in building "dual core" GPUs because you end up with redundant silicone. The dual GPU boards are a hack made by graphics card makers because there is nothing else to differentiate their products except for a cool sounding and poor performing dual card.

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:12 pm

bonestonne wrote:if you really wanted to argue between AMD and intel, you just can't...i prefer Intel due to its technology...i used to have an older AMD system...one of the earlier Athlons, compared to an equivelent P3 or P4 [423 P4] the AMDs were much faster yes, but they also ran very hot. now you see AMD copying Intel basically, because they've stopped using pressed ceramic, and they're all plastic CPUs with the die on top [for single cores] once dual cores were put out, AMD again copied Intel, with the IHS...they could have just had a larger die with the two cores, or a really cool looking CPU with two visible dies [i'd get one, that would look amazing.

but now you see intel with the Core 2 Duo, and when you try to argue x2 vs C2D, what are you arguing? a larger L2 cache, and the difference between a southbridge or a different fsb.

what numbers am i missing?

if you're really into stoking one or the other, where's AMDs quad core?

the only reason i don't still have an AMD is because i have to DDR ram. i have DDR2, and SD, and RD...no DDR. i have an Athlon XP 1.75ghz CPU and board upstairs, but no RAM for it. my first Athlon system i gave to a friend because they messed up their Athlon [which is why i have the CPU] and the board was given to me.

What!!!??? You think AMD's technology is worse than Intel because of the CPU packaging? That is like saying my 32" CRT TV is better than yours because the plastic valence is better built than your 65" 1080p plasma monitor. AMD was first with integrated memory controller, x86-64 instruction set, single chip dual core, and many many more advancements. The Athlon was never substantially hotter than the P3 or especially not the P4.

Yes, C2D spanks the Athlon right now but their value is high. There are advantages to both CPUs right now. AMD, value, idle power. Intel raw speed and overclockability. If you are not overclocking, AMD offers a great option for most buyers with a good upgrade path.

If I was to buy now I would probably go Intel, but don't just throw AMD out the window because they don't make the fastest chip on the high end.

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:23 pm

autoboy wrote:What!!!??? You think AMD's technology is worse than Intel because of the CPU packaging?

i didn't vote either one.

i simply said right now Intel is faster.

Jump to Conclusions was a game in Office Space, not reality.

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:38 pm

i prefer Intel due to its technology....now you see AMD copying Intel basically, because they've stopped using pressed ceramic, AMD again copied Intel, with the IHS....or a really cool looking CPU with two visible dies

So I'm jumping to conclusions. You specifically state here that you prefer Intel becasue they don't use ceramic, they use a IHS, and AMD could have had two visible dies.

The last statement is completely impossible anyways because only Intel uses the hack of two physical dies on one package. All AMD dual core CPUs are all one die with two cores. Each AMD cpu can talk direct to the other. Intel dual core ( the versions w/two separate dies) have to pass information through the northbridge and can't talk directly to the cpu right next to them.

bonestonne · Post by **bonestonne** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:21 am

maybe [then again, just an idea]

you should quit arguing. i bet your idea of my posts is a stupid teenager yelling their lungs out...well, maybe you shouldn't argue with someone over preference. you obviously prefer AMD.

you're trying to sell it like i've never used an AMD and i'm trying to beat on it.

ryboto · Post by **ryboto** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:50 am

bonestonne wrote: maybe [then again, just an idea]

you should quit arguing. i bet your idea of my posts is a stupid teenager yelling their lungs out...well, maybe you shouldn't argue with someone over preference. you obviously prefer AMD.

you're trying to sell it like i've never used an AMD and i'm trying to beat on it.

I'm really confused by your posts...you argue you're merely citing preference, but then you accuse AMD of copying Intel? Why did you even have to bring this up?

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:19 pm

if you really wanted to argue between AMD and intel, you just can't...i prefer Intel due to its technology...i used to have an older AMD system...one of the earlier Athlons, compared to an equivelent P3 or P4 [423 P4] the AMDs were much faster yes, but they also ran very hot. now you see AMD copying Intel basically, because they've stopped using pressed ceramic, and they're all plastic CPUs with the die on top [for single cores] once dual cores were put out, AMD again copied Intel, with the IHS...they could have just had a larger die with the two cores, or a really cool looking CPU with two visible dies [i'd get one, that would look amazing.

Yo, this makes no sense. Furthermore, AMD and Intel's engineering only meet in the user space. The only thing the processors have in common are base elements.

Also, AMD engineers take incredible risks that Intel just isn't willing to (not that either company has any choice to do otherwise). Historically, this has paid off for AMD; if not for the success of Pentium M Intel would still be making Prescotts. Intel hasn't led innovation in...well not in my living memory. It's fair to say that if not for its dealings with IBM they may not have even designed x86, or had any success with it if they had.

Remember, we're talking about a company that was made famous by inventing a FPU unit that couldn't process floating point arithmetic.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:27 pm

the only reason i don't still have an AMD is because i have to DDR ram. i have DDR2, and SD, and RD...no DDR. i have an Athlon XP 1.75ghz CPU and board upstairs, but no RAM for it.

K8 processors are cheap and support DDR2 as well as DDR. Athlon XP is a K7 single-channel part. If you're going to use it as a comparison against Intel you'll have to find a socket-478 P4 Northwood or something.

Longbow · Post by **Longbow** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:04 am

bonestonne wrote:the only reason i don't still have an AMD is because i have to DDR ram. i have DDR2, and SD, and RD...no DDR. i have an Athlon XP 1.75ghz CPU and board upstairs, but no RAM for it. my first Athlon system i gave to a friend because they messed up their Athlon [which is why i have the CPU] and the board was given to me.

RAM is probably the last to worry about when i consider upgrade to a new cpu/mobo. not to mention AMD X2 support DDR2 ram.

personally i have no preference over brand, i pick the product. AMD had some great chips in the last few years, although it's not quite catching up with Intel right now. not much headroom to oc, and not much energy/effiency even cost advantages. my new silent box had a 4200+ windsor ee in mind, but i just changed it to BE2140.

SlaveToSilence · Post by **SlaveToSilence** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:43 am

wow

as we are on opinions,
am i the only one who thinks maybe pentium are sell-outs with all their pc-world adverts etc, preying on all the people who dont know much about computers?

"core 2 duo? wow! and for only Â£8000? bargain! i'll take twelve!"

you better get one quick while they last! its not like they make billions of these things!

ronrem · Post by **ronrem** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:04 pm

If I was a Gamer and looking to spend big big money for whatever kick a higher frame rate adds,,,I guess I'd lean toward Core 2. However...I'm a cheap bastard and don't game. What AMD offers me is a solid-quiet-affordable chip so I don't need to tap my beer budget

Seems to me that these Quad Cores would be nice...If you work for NASA.
For me...how fast I can move a mouse probably makes anything beyong the basic Brisbane overkill.

Ya goota love how the X2 3600 is about as powerful as the $500 Super Chip of just a few years ago.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:28 pm

If I was a Gamer and looking to spend big big money for whatever kick a higher frame rate adds,,,I guess I'd lean toward Core 2.

CPU makes little or no difference for gaming. Number of cores even less, well, as long as it's two.

Games depend on the GPU almost entirely now. It used to be different, but recently CPUs have pushed so far ahead compared to video cards at the same price points...

It's weird, especially with all the great improvements that video cards have seen over the past two years, but the price war between processor companies has made what would then have been CPUs that would have been priced out of the market too cheap to pass up today.

As far as I can tell, the only really great reason to buy C2D is if you do lots of encoding or anything crypto.

But that's because I think that the idea of future-proofing is foolish.

Lanx · Post by **Lanx** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:48 am

i really don't see any validation in the arguements against amd here, i've built 2 nearly identical machines both w/ amd x2 3600 1.9ghz procs, which i've both oc'd to 2.9ghz (which makes em amd 6000? w/o the extra cache). it was a 60$ chip, i got 2 of em, still wouldn't have been the price of one 6420.

if i wanted to push em to 3.1 i'm sure i could, but why go that far. everything is ambient now at 42c fans are either at 40% or dont' even turn on at all w/ speed fan.

again it's pretty silent doing office apps/browsing and the fans kick up when i game, but if you want to game w/o lag i'm sure you'd sacrifice some silence so you don't die to lag.