Legit Reviews

The title really says it all. lets say the person considering this is going to game with a 9600gt and also do lots of sound editing. What's the better choice. Looking at 2gb of 1066mhz ddr2 to go with it. I know the bandwidth is with the phenom and most gaming performance will be with the core 2. Which is the best for the overall machine. Will there be much noticeable between the two other than a few fps?

Most sound and video editing software makes use of multiple cores, so Phenom will be faster there, but the C2D will be faster in everything else.

Wait just a few hours and the answer will come to you on this very website. I've seen the numbers and you'll be looking at an Intel. I've got two E8400's myself and they are great.

In the eternal words of napolean dynamite, "LUCKY!!"

I think you'll find the answer here - http://www.legitreviews.com/article/668/1/

The Wolfdale series of processors is great... The E8500 is a bit pricey and an overclocked Q6600 is a better call in the long run. The E8400 and E8200 on the other hand should be great price versus performance chips with some overclocking love. ;)

It really depends on what you want to do the most, and where you want the best performance. Overall, I would choose the E8400 HANDS DOWN!...no contest.

Sure quads are great, but the relatively few applications, and even fewer games, if any that utilize them, points me to stick with duals for a bit longer yet. Not to mention sticking with Intel for the monster overclocking headroom.

martini161 wrote:In the eternal words of napolean dynamite, "LUCKY!!"

Haha, I'm not even the one getting the computer, just assembling the thing for a friend. I am getting him a 19" widescreen lcd, 9600, 8400 (looks like at least from the posts and review just posted), a gigabyte board at least It looks like it. and 2x1gb of ddr2 1066. for $900.

Well, imo, Lucky would be either waiting for the 9800 series, or getting an 8800GTS 512....not settling for a 9600.

ibleet wrote:Well, imo, Lucky would be either waiting for the 9800 series, or getting an 8800GTS 512....not settling for a 9600.

well, you COULD wait for the 98xx's but the 9600GTs have sweet performance for the price(and you can get it NOW)

Ya or you could just get a similarly priced 8800GT and blow it away.

Haha, I was reading 9600 and thinking radeon

Dan

I would get a 8800 GT instead of a 9600 GT since their prices are very similar, and according a review done by this site, a 8800 GT substantially outperforms a 9600 GT in every situation. This is because even if 9600 is a newer card, this one was done for mid-end users.

I would also get a Quad right away. It's true that right now there are not many applications that utilize more than 2 cores, but these are my two responses in front of that situation:

1) The software developers are gradually moving to 4 cores, in the long run, the applications will be increasingly multi threaded, meaning they will be an increasing number of software that utilizes 4 cores, then 8 cores, then who knows.. This means that getting a quad would be more future proof.

2) For the overclockers, getting a Quad is even sweeter. One can for example overclock a Q6600 to 3.6 Ghz and obtain higher clock speeds than even a 8500. Now, one of course can overclock the 8500 to almost 5ghz, but I have seen reviews that demonstrate that when one makes comparisons between very high clock speeds, there isn't much of a significant difference there. This is pretty much like comparing 80 FPS and 120 FPS. (maybe I'm wrong)

I would recommend to get a quad, but not the Phenom, but a Q6600 and overclock to at least 3.2 Ghz to get good potential. Then acquire a 8800 GT for good bang for the buck. If you can wait, I would recommend to watch benches of the upcoming 9800 nvidia cards as soon as they are released on reviewers' web sites, such as legitreviews (which is the web site that I trust most, thanks!)

I realize that, but he doesn't want to spend that much more and won't play a lot of videogames. I figured a 9600 gt would be more than adequate for his use, and the performance difference between the two isn't that substancial condiering it is 30 dollars more for a 880gt non overclocked than a overclocked 9600gt, it may change. the major purpose of the thread was for processor not video card.

dgood wrote:I realize that, but he doesn't want to spend that much more and won't play a lot of videogames. I figured a 9600 gt would be more than adequate for his use, and the performance difference between the two isn't that substancial condiering it is 30 dollars more for a 880gt non overclocked than a overclocked 9600gt, it may change. the major purpose of the thread was for processor not video card.

You're comparing overclocks on video cards? Do you have any idea how easy it is to overclock a video card using rivatuner?

Anyway, if he doesn't game much, then video card is not an issue...just in the OP you said he was "going to game", which threw me offtrack. With that in mind, I would recommend an INTEL Quad...Q6600 maybe bacause its an overclock monster. I'm not being cheeky, but AMD is way behind in the processor game, so I would avoid phenoms at all costs.

dgood wrote:the major purpose of the thread was for processor not video card.

In my post, I mostly talked about processors.
Ibleet basically said the same. Avoid Phenoms, I have seen enough reviews where the Q6600 significantly beats the Phenom. Also, I've seen a vast amount of Q6600 users overclocking it, to stable functioning.

dgood wrote:

martini161 wrote:In the eternal words of napolean dynamite, "LUCKY!!"

Haha, I'm not even the one getting the computer, just assembling the thing for a friend. I am getting him a 19" widescreen lcd, 9600, 8400 (looks like at least from the posts and review just posted), a gigabyte board at least It looks like it. and 2x1gb of ddr2 1066. for $900.

lol ok but i was talking about bwall and him getting 2 8x00 procesors