Building a New Rig

[Djarid]

I have been a fan of AMD and had been for many years... they still rule the roost in the server market, the Opteron is significantly better than Intels current offerings for most server roles due to memory management.

Unfortuantely in the deskto market they have lost their way and are not providing the same bang for bucck as they used to. I would now definitely go intel even though it would mean changing motherboard along with the processor. The 6600 is not significantly more than the equivalent phenom but has better benchmarks on every review I have seen.

AMD also missed the graphics card market this time around... I think the aquisition of ATI has had an impact on their R&D they seem to be concentrating on integrated chips instead of improving their market share in the high end graphics market.

[Shigan5]

Theres debates going both ways over intel and amd and my stance is this:

AMD gives about the same performance as intel for loads cheaper. Its much easier for me to upgrade an AMD chip. Reason being, amds are around 200 at most. Intel is upwards of 200 usually around 500 all the way up to 1k. So packing away a 200 chip is much easier then feeling like i blew way too much money, and then go out and spend the same amount. So in my opinion ill go with damn near close performance for cheaper, then go with the barely better for $300 more.

And if your referencing the Intel Extremes, the only thing that makes them different from any other processor is the size of the L1/L2 Cache. Everything else is the same.

So if AMD gives close to the same difference as Intel; Why 1) most have gone to Intel (including hell-bound amd lovers) & 2) Benchmarks clearly state the benefit and difference in performance on AMD vs Intel. The only reason to stay one versus the other is because you are use to it, but that doesn't mean they are both comparable in performance. Otherwise, Intel wouldn't be spanking AMD so bad.

Looks like you got a space heater in the making there. A glowing blue one at that.

Intel spanks AMD in benchmarks mostly because of the large ammounts of L2 on it. AMD's tend to run much hotter than Intel's as well.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115018 Q6600 - $234
Cheapest Intel Quad Core, Gives a full 6MB more L2 (4MB if you include the L3 on the Phenom)

Exactly what i said in my post above. And the reason intel beats out AM. only reason. Think of it this way, two cars both have a max speed of 60mph, ones made by porche other by Nissan. Now you will say the porche is better, BUT, its realyly not they can both only go the same speed.

Same thing with processors, if theyre both 3.0ghz theyre both gonna run at 3.0ghz (unless you overclock one but thats besides point) but what will make one seem faster is the l2 cache.

[TheHamburglar]

Ok this shouldnt be happening but for some reason I only get 20fps with my settings all the way down on 1 client. What might be causing the major problem.

[Klamor]

multi monitor fps issues maybe?
if you are useing windows xp, it's better to run in horizontal/vertical span instead of the two separate windows..

[TheHamburglar]

I'm running what I listed above at the start of the thread on 1 monitor.

[Fear The Wrath]

Theres debates going both ways over intel and amd and my stance is this:

AMD gives about the same performance as intel for loads cheaper. Its much easier for me to upgrade an AMD chip. Reason being, amds are around 200 at most. Intel is upwards of 200 usually around 500 all the way up to 1k. So packing away a 200 chip is much easier then feeling like i blew way too much money, and then go out and spend the same amount. So in my opinion ill go with damn near close performance for cheaper, then go with the barely better for $300 more.

And if your referencing the Intel Extremes, the only thing that makes them different from any other processor is the size of the L1/L2 Cache. Everything else is the same.

ok i 5-box on one machine using a quadcore intel
i am thinking of buying 4 more computers this summer and i will run each character separately
if AMD is cheaper you guys think since each comp will only be running one char its smarter to get AMD?

[Klamor]

I'm running what I listed above at the start of the thread on 1 monitor.

oh woops... sorry

[TheHamburglar]

I'm running what I listed above at the start of the thread on 1 monitor.

oh woops... sorry

No biggie, I ran my 3x shaman team last night and it ran perfect no lag what so ever. Maybe I have my resolution too high, I'll test it out when i get home.

[Sam DeathWalker]

ok i 5-box on one machine using a quadcore intel
i am thinking of buying 4 more computers this summer and i will run each character separately
if AMD is cheaper you guys think since each comp will only be running one char its smarter to get AMD?



Thats what I do ... but I use win2K and not Vista. The op items are all decent cept power supply (get a name brand) and the case. It sure is odd that DDR2 is 1/2 the cost of DDR and DDR3 lol .. I use ThermalTake for cases and supplies. Get a Raptor just for you game to impove speed more then faster ram. I just use AMD cause i always have, its true that for the first time Intel is slaughtering them in the desktop area. Still if you don't support AMD you might just have one choice in the future.

[Wilbur]

If you are going for 1 char/computer. Then AMD is fine. If you are 5-boxing WoW, I'd recommend having a couple of low capacity load seek time Drives to put your game installs on.