4x Radeon HD 4670 or 1x Radeon HD 4870

The reason I have compared those processors like that is because they are even on price and similar on performance (though the intels are still ahead), sometimes it's in favour of the Core 2 Duos. The AMDs go cheaper, as they go right down to the bottom end, but the ones down there are so slow that even a dual core will beat the quads at video editing tasks!
You made a bit of a istake buying a 3870 in this day and age, it's been retired in favour of the 4670, which uses half the power and heat, and more importantly isn't the buggy piece of **** the 3800 series was.

 

Meh ALL of the core duo CPUs are beat out by the cheaper ADM cpus, the C2D seem to offer more for a bit more price, with the start of the phenom CPUs it seems ADM is going neck and neck( or a head behind) with Intel and the I7, it seems to come down to more what the mobo offers than just what the CPU can do

Not for 70$, it keeps up with my 8800 on 3dmark 06 benchmarks plus its not going to see much if any gaming as I got it for my uncle who wanted a basic mid range card and sues the computer about 4 tiems a week 0-o.

I have a 200$ PSU to buy so my 8800 will have to do me for a few years until a better ATI card comes along for 70 or less >>

 

Not really, the AMDs are cheaper for a reason. The X2 7750 used to be a similar price to the E5200 but was pricedropped so the vastly higher power consumption and heat and slower performance in certain apps could be compensated for. They're genrally not nice processors. The Phenom IIs are the only good AMD CPUs at the moment, and given their pricing, there is no reason to buy one over a more refined Core 2 Quad. It's a shame but it's the truth.
As for the GPUs, as I say before, the HD4670 is very near the HD3870 and similarly priced, but an all-round better card. Wait it out until the next gen stuff comes along though and the HD4830 may well drop to that price, and that's a 9800GT beater.

 

AS I said ADM was king before the C2D hit and they have not really kept up with the sheer performance, but lookign at the i7 cost you can find a solid mobo/phenom2 combo far cheaper and its within 30% or less proficiency of it. There are still combination's of ADM cpu and mobo that will save you 200-400$ at a reasonable loss of performance(generally 10-15% for every 100$ saved).

Its not a bad qaulity/cost solution but in the end you need to know your parts,other wise you'll just get a c2d extreme and think its great for 900$ . (and tell me WTF whats so great about them?)

Is that the DDR5 model? it will take another year or 2 to drop that low I think... LOL

 

The HD4830s just use GDDR3, but are currently only $100-$110, some with rebates to get them down to $85.
The HD4850s are only $130, and outpace even the 9800GTX+, but still use GDDR3.
The HD4870s are where GDDR5 begins, at $165 ($155 after MIR for two brands)


Core 2 Extreme chips have unlocked multipliers like Black editions, and you know how well the Core 2s overclock on a pre-volts basis. The unlocked multiplier removes the biggest costraint to overclocking a Core 2 - the motherboard's FSB limitations. I believe they top out at 10.5x multiplier. Since X38/X48 boards can push up to 455FSB, and P45s up to 500, I'll let you do the maths!

Ultimately AMD is the cheapest way of getting a quad core, but really, if there's any point in you having a quad core, you need to get a better one, either a Phenom II or a Core 2 Quad.

 

That's the problem tho there's no real point in a quad since not alot of programs bother utilizing it, you are still better off maximizing price/cost and waiting for better hardware to become cheaper and more widely used. There is just no point in spending the 500$+ for a CPU/mobo when 300$ish is all you really need to spend since in a year that 500$ worth of stuff will come down to 250 and you will see what the better hardware advancements have brought.

 

Perhaps not for your purposes, but for video editors they're a godsend, and for dual graphics gamers like me they're also a godsend (also, GTA4 can only be played on a Quad core above minimum settings)

 

I don't think I was reading the whole processor name when I posted this.. (I must have simply discover Intel core DUO's are cheaper then Phenom X4's which makes sense)

In the UK at the moment
A Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz is £10 less then an AM3 Phenom II X4 810 2.6GHz
and
A Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz is £6 more then an AM2+ Phenom II X4 940 3GHz

As for i7's Intel are taking the mickey £460 for a square of metal....

I'm not sure whether the general Intel fasterness make these prices more sensible to other people but to me they seem stupid.

and even then I have an AM3 compatible motherboard (which I bought because a 3GHz core 2 duo was DOUBLE the price of my 3GHz Athlon X2 at the time and AMD boards were cheaper)

 

In general, a 2.66Ghz Core 2 Quad is toe to toe with a 3Ghz Phenom II. From what I've seen there is a slight advantage to the Core 2. Therefore, a Q8200 and 810 will also probably be on similar ground, and as you see the Intel is cheaper, not to mention not needing pricey DDR3 RAM.

The i7 940 might be £460, but the i7 920 is half that, right on par with the Q9400, which is good, because that's its weakest real rival (the 920 fares a lot better than the Q9400 in many apps, but in games there's not much between them). It's only the motherboards for i7 that are expensive, and with the advent of boards like the EX58-UD3R that's a moot point as they cross over perfectly. You're not getting any less board for your £170 with the i7s, there just aren't any basic ones.

A 3Ghz core 2 duo is indeed twice the price of a 3GHz AMD, because it absolutely destroys it performance-wise. Not double, but you rarely pay double and get double performance in the PC component industry, I'm sure you realise that. Overall the 6000+ sits second fiddle to the 2.53Ghz E5200, which is really a budget chip, and a darn good one as well. A £60 board could easily get it to 3.6Ghz at which point it beats pretty much all the triple core Phenoms in multithreaded apps. Intel's flagship dual core the E8600 can be pretty easily clocked to 4.3Ghz, and at such speeds it beats a lot of the quad core phenoms. Now imagine two of those chips slapped together, i.e. the Q9650. Beginning to see why it's worth the money?

 

I'm not sure what to say now......other then yes

 

Basically what I'm trying to say is that while AMD CPUs aren't especially bad value, there's never a case where they're an any better option than using Intel. Given that Intel CPUs are far more power efficient and therefore don't get as hot, I never have any reason to recommend them.

 

Amen to that my Athlon x2 is substantially hotter across the board then a 3.0GHz P4 (that seems to be used in most of the heat tests on case reviews and in a decent board with decent other components has proved to be rather epically fast) I had before.

which side am I on???

 

The P4s were among Intel's worst CPUs as far as heat is concered. Believe it or not, even though they have 4 cores versus 1, newer Core 2 Quads run cooler than the old P4s did.

 

I tell you what as soon as I get sufficient cash my sigs getting changed...

this thread has become quite expensive for me....

 

Haha. I used to be an avid AMD supporter back in the Athlon XP and X2 days, but nowadays there's no denying the reality of the situation. Still partial to AMD's graphics though, despite the terrible drivers.

 

I'm using pre-release ones because of seven beta so can't really comment
-24x AA is a con and doesn't exist

 

Not off the bat. Go to the Anti-Aliasing section of Catalyst Control Center. Set the Filter to 'Narrow Tent' and then drag the slider across. I think you may be limited to 16x with a single GPU, but I'm not certain about this. Either way, in my mind, 8xAA is usually plenty.

 

ahhh with filter on edge-detect it samples at 24x which is right--I think

 

Possibly. I haven't looked much into it as the performance drop is vast.

 

Ya those were the best ADM days but once the D2C came out as refined tech unlike the core duos ADM has not quite caught back up to the over all performance offered by intel CPUs within a 100$ gap.

Thats why I went with a C2D setup from a 939 X2, I saw the writing on the wall and decided to go with a platform I could upgrade over the years that would save me money and be pure performance for what little I spend on it.

I still can't belive I sold off my 3800X2 CPU,solid copper zalman heat sink and dfi lan party 939 board for 270$ acouple years back!
If it were not for that I could not afford to go C2D