noob shizz this look ok...+question

[Zseth]

To Fursphere,

In applications that do not support Quad-Core architecture or performing operations using multicores, the Intel chips are superior in benchmarks due to their OUTDATED technology. Using older architecture to support older programs with faster clock speeds leads to greater compatibility. What AMD did was advance to the next level rather than trying to take baby steps up the stairs. The Phenom + Next-Gen games like Crysis is instant proof. Crysis was designed with a true Quad-Core in mind running with a high end graphics card, everything from weather, to landscape, AI, and physics runs smoother and more accurately because all the paths can be used actively and at the same time rather than using a Queue system to determine important in the Intel Processor intersection. While, even I was tempted to go the Intel Quad route permenantly, I noticed similiar performance using a 6000+ AMD in Current-Gen games (WoW, AoEIII, Far Cry) but I held out due to its lack of innovation in chipset design. In addition, you need to look at the whole picture of the AMD 7 Series Platform.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_15337,00.html

Motherboard, CPU integration and updates that don't need to occur at the same time, but when you finally do, the performance is night and day, while with Intel you are FORCED to get another motherboard that doesn't provide the same performance increase. I'll take my ability to string the 4 video cards together with each being able to use a processor on the quad-core independently over having to share time to do tasks.

Its not that I'm just an AMD fanboy, (I've owned pretty much a processor from EVERY release that occurs the past 10 years to include testing server processors) its just I'm tired of Intel not reaching for new innovation and I'd rather cheerlead for a company willing to taking computers to the next level.

[Zseth]

AMD 7 Series board just makes me happy :P

[bob]

Thanks ppl you’re all giving good and helpful info much appreciated
Didn’t they recall a bunch of the top of the line Phenoms?
Also
Would running the 5xwow’s all on different hard drives increase performance? eg 5x 80gb vs 1 400gb

Thanks again

[thinus]

More so, I'd rather spend $200 on a chip that I can easily upgrade in a year when the 8 core chips come out rather than be stuck with an outdated architecture that will be burnt out once Intel realized it can't keep overclocking old chips and getting inferior results. My Phenom(9500) slightly overclocked to 2.4 GHz a core got a 3750 3D Mark Score compared to the Q6700 which costs almost twice as much which scored a 3800. So for $200 more I can get 50 more points with something that can't handle different affinity? AMD > Intel anyday of the week.

All reviews I've seen has the Q6600 outperforming the Phenom 9500 consistently and Intel priced the Q6600 to be cheaper than the Phenom 9500, not to mention the difficulty of finding a decent spider board at a good price.

The Intel quad core technology may be just patched together processors but it works and it has been working for more than a year. There are almost too many motherboards to pick from.

I love AMD and I applaud their decision to go the true quad core route but the price and performance of the Q6600 makes it really difficult to justify buying a Phenom. Our local supplier sells on average a 100 Q6600s a month, he has yet to sell a Phenom.

[Skuggomann]

No you wont.

The DirectX Bug is fixed in Vista, you will only suffer a minor FPS drop from the extra resources Vista uses. However you do get nice sized Windows on one screen only :-)

It still does not change the fact that vista SUCS XD

[Zseth]

More so, I'd rather spend $200 on a chip that I can easily upgrade in a year when the 8 core chips come out rather than be stuck with an outdated architecture that will be burnt out once Intel realized it can't keep overclocking old chips and getting inferior results. My Phenom(9500) slightly overclocked to 2.4 GHz a core got a 3750 3D Mark Score compared to the Q6700 which costs almost twice as much which scored a 3800. So for $200 more I can get 50 more points with something that can't handle different affinity? AMD > Intel anyday of the week.

All reviews I've seen has the Q6600 outperforming the Phenom 9500 consistently and Intel priced the Q6600 to be cheaper than the Phenom 9500, not to mention the difficulty of finding a decent spider board at a good price.

The Intel quad core technology may be just patched together processors but it works and it has been working for more than a year. There are almost too many motherboards to pick from.

I love AMD and I applaud their decision to go the true quad core route but the price and performance of the Q6600 makes it really difficult to justify buying a Phenom. Our local supplier sells on average a 100 Q6600s a month, he has yet to sell a Phenom.

Retail Price of the Phenom 9500 = $200
Retail Price of the Phenom 9600 = $240
OEM Price of the Q6600 = $260
Retail Price of the Q6600 = $280
Retail Price of the Q6700 = $540

All prices taken directly from newegg.com

[Wilbur]

So for $20 extra you can get a Q6600, Motherboards loaded with the Intel Chipsets which perform better with the Nvidia kit...

No contest.

[Zseth]

http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16813128070

My mobo, solidly overclocking my 9500 at 3.1 GHz per core with no over heating. AMD proves once again a solid chip that you can overclock as much as your heart desires.

[Wilbur]

/me sighs

The Q6600 can be overclocked to in excess of 3.2GHz

[Zseth]

I stand by AMD. DEATH TO THE INTEL!!!!

Hope we were able to help the poster make an informed decision...