Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
I am trying to decide what dual-core system to upgrade to and have read good things about these CPUs.I'm more comfortable with AMD chipsets and the low cost of the AMD 5600 X2 in comparison, and previous experience with overclocking is pushing a Pentium 200 to 233mhz, hardly impressive. The overclockability of the modern Intel chips seems quite amazing, is it worth the extra cost for a speed increase a few years down the line? Dual core will be a significant jump from my ageing Athlon 2500 anyway...
No, just trying to work out the best price/performance ratio
This 98se comp that I use most is still running a AMD Athlon palomino 1600+ Runs fine for me. But I do not do Games
I can appreciate that, I still use older machines and hate dumping kit that is still useable (this machine will upgrade my sisters 700mhz Duron to something a bit more modern); I started out with a 3.5mhz Spectrum, so the irony of the speed-race is not lost on me, however it's upgrade time and technology has moved on since I built this system.
The Intel quad core processor Q6600 is a good buy at the moment.
Though the AMD X2 6000+ is pretty cheap at the moment (socket AM2). Though I doubt you would be able to push this chip much if only cooling on air.
All depends really on what you want to do with your machine.
I'd go for for an Intel quad core on a P35 motherboard if I was building a machine at the moment. Pick the Right board and it should support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. I could not see you running out of processor power anytime soon on a solution like that.
It must be me getting old, But it's a bit like the Arms race in the cold war Got to be bigger with a bigger bang. As I said it must be me. As a I tend to be more conntent with life, more so as I have got older. But you go ahead enjoy. Next big BANG WINDOWS 7 all cost mega bucks
Thanks Mr Beeline, when you say P35 motherboard - is that relating to Intel chipset? I thought I'd read plenty on the subject, but not enough it seems.
I don't like Vista all that much, except for its 100% better-than-XP search function, but I need to be up to speed for my work, plus the weedy dual core chip in my Toshiba laptop hammers my desktop PC in a number of tasks, twice as fast in some instances.
So what about the new AMD that's dew out. Barcelona I think it is or is that the wrong name. That may be worth waiting for
Well, I'm running a Core 2 Duo E6600 overclocked from 2.4Ghz to 3.0GHz and frankly I've been amazed at how easy it's been to experiment with differing clock speeds. I do it because I can but it does help with video rendering.
I've also been trying out underclocking and found that from roughly 2GHz to 3GHz the core temperatures remain the same (with a Scythe Andy Sanurai heatsink). With the stock heatsink the temperatures varied no more that 1-2C.
I have also overclocked to over 3.3GHz (3.6GHz was the max I hit but memory timings seemed to cause instability) but over 3GHz is where the performance/cooling ratio tails off and temperatures can vary by up to +4 to 5C.
The E6600 at stock settings is still pretty fast anyway.
I think it's the `Phenom` range on the agenda, apparently they are aware of the mistake they made switching from socket 939 to 940/AM2 in such a short space of time and will make sure chips are compatible with the new socket in the future, but DDR3 will also be a factor. Just too much choice, I prefer that to not enough though.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.