Geforce 6600GT or Geforce 6800GT?

[Darth Ni]

You always make jokes huh? So you

[The Coordinator]

That

[Darth Ni]

That

[The Coordinator]

That

[Darth Ni]

That

[The Coordinator]

Good to let us know, oh insulting one.

[Rhomal]

> I just don't see the point of Athlon64. I really don't care too much anyways...

 

Thats fairly obvious. First of all, you can more power/bang for your buck vs a p4. Second you are future proof. When the 64bit OS/software hits your all set. Yet you still have excellent backward compatibility perfomance for 32bit.

 

No current intel can do that.

 

> Besides, when you have a fully loaded system with everything, a $300 difference makes a biiiiig difference.

 

No idea what your talking about. We were discussing a low end p4 vs a amd64. You can get a amd64 3000+ with high end mobo for $260ish. Far from a '$300.' difference vs a p4.

 

> Besides, I do other things than waste my life on the PC...

 

Please.. get off your high horse. Your on enough apparently to reply in short amount of time to every one of my replies. If you feel you cant 'win' the debate just say so rather then pull this shollow stunt.

 

> Price is the main difference and I'd rather pay $850 and get a 3.6 Xeon 64bit w/800FSB then purchase a $1200 AMD FX-55 or Operton processor.

 

LOL.. you need to check your prices. Plus, have you seen the benchmarks between the two processors? Neither has a wide advantage over the other across the board.

 

> See the point? Try comparing an Athlon64 3000+ - 4000+ or even FX-51 and see which processor wins (Xeon or A64). Yes, I admit I am a budget gamer partly because I am saving up for university (UPENN is still a lot even w/ a 20k scholarship), the only reason I bought a new PC was to get rid of an old 350mhz

 

Your under the impression it seems the amd line is more expensive then the intel. Your are QUITE mistaken, intel you generally get poorer perfomance and pay more.

 

In the end if you just like intel because of brand loyality just say so and leave it at that. But trying to throw price and benchmarks around will hurt your case more then help it.

[Darth Ni]

> I just don't see the point of Athlon64. I really don't care too much anyways...

 

Thats fairly obvious. First of all, you can more power/bang for your buck vs a p4. Second you are future proof. When the 64bit OS/software hits your all set. Yet you still have excellent backward compatibility perfomance for 32bit.

 

No current intel can do that.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said, there are P4 and Xeon processors with EM64T technology or Extended Memory 64 and they are 64 bit processors. But you are right, AMD is way better when it comes to 64bit computing. Ofcourse, I'd rather buy a new Intel chip in 2 years than stick with an FX-55.

 

> Besides, I do other things than waste my life on the PC...

 

Please.. get off your high horse. Your on enough apparently to reply in short amount of time to every one of my replies. If you feel you cant 'win' the debate just say so rather then pull this shollow stunt.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What stunt?

 

> Price is the main difference and I'd rather pay $850 and get a 3.6 Xeon 64bit w/800FSB then purchase a $1200 AMD FX-55 or Operton processor.

 

LOL.. you need to check your prices. Plus, have you seen the benchmarks between the two processors? Neither has a wide advantage over the other across the board.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Xeon 3.6GHz for $875

 

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-117-029&depa=1

 

AMD Athlon64 FX-55 for $975

 

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-103-492&depa=0

 

You're right, the difference isn't all that big but I'd still have the Xeon 3.6 because of the higher clock speed. They are both 64-bit and they both have 1MB of cache. Granted, the hypertransport technology has a 2000MHz FSB but on certain Xeon motherboards, you can perform an overclock to 1.25 GHz FSB. Also, even though Hyper-Threading doesn't make a HUGE difference, there is about a 20% performance increase with certain non-gaming applications.

 

Your under the impression it seems the amd line is more expensive then the intel. Your are QUITE mistaken, intel you generally get poorer perfomance and pay more.

 

In the end if you just like intel because of brand loyality just say so and leave it at that. But trying to throw price and benchmarks around will hurt your case more then help it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well... they call them benchmarks for a reason. They do give a pretty accurate (not a 100% accurate) view of things (some of them like stuff from Futuremark).

[The Coordinator]

Well... they call them benchmarks for a reason. They do give a pretty accurate (not a 100% accurate) view of things (some of them like stuff from Futuremark).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again: What sense does it make if your pc achieves thousands of 3d marks if it cannot run certain games properly?

[Darth Ni]

Well... they call them benchmarks for a reason. They do give a pretty accurate (not a 100% accurate) view of things (some of them like stuff from Futuremark).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Again: What sense does it make if your pc achieves thousands of 3d marks if it cannot run certain games properly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, thats why you check to see that the components you select are compatible with each other and also you check to see whether your video card is compatible with the games you want to play. Obviously due to the number of possible pc configurations, a certain game does not run properly so, you get a patch when it comes out. Pretty simple isn't it?

 

PS: How can you compare AMD and Intel processors without benchmarks? Certain games are optimized for certain video cards and processors so they don't always give an accurate view of things. Thats like saying that a 6800 GT is better than an X850 XT Platinum Edition because it performs better in Doom3. We all know that D3 was optimized for the nVidia series of cards which is why it performs better.

[The Coordinator]

Benchmark only programs are known to be abused due to "optimized drivers" from the chip designers (ati, nvidi). Not in all versions, but leaves a bitter taste nevertheless.

[Darth Ni]

Benchmark only programs are known to be abused due to "optimized drivers" from the chip designers (ati, nvidi). Not in all versions, but leaves a bitter taste nevertheless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nothing gives a 100% accurate view of things. I'm pretty sure that Futuremark's benchmark software is trustworthy though. Even if they are optimized, I think that the 66.93 Forceware for nVidia (which is what Futuremark reccomends) is probably the best driver out there for all games. So, even if its optimized for the benchmarking software, it won't make a major difference on the tests. Besides, how much of a difference can optimized drivers make? I ran 3DMark05 and 03 with 66.81. 66.93. and 67.03 and the difference between them was 1 or two fps, not a MAJOR difference. The 61.77 release is also good but its outdated and doesn't run all that well with newer games. I can't comment for ATi drivers but I'm assuming the Catalyst 4.12 are the best gaming drivers... I used to have an ATi 9600XT but, I returned it the day I bought it for being such crap.

 

You do make a good point there though some versions are like that. Then again, nothing is 100% trustworthy or unbiased but I seriously doubt that Futuremark is on nVidia's or ATi's payroll...