Yo guys, its time for my new motherboard and cpu .....but should i pick up a AMD 3500, or a P4 3.0 ...im planning on overclocker what ever cpu i get, im prettttyy sure im going with a DFI lanparty UT Sli(venus) if i were to go amd and if i go intel probly a DFI board again...or somthing by asus, but the main question here is..what will over clock better ! !

ps. any tips or info on other good OC boards, holla back.


also im picking up ram soon after ...any tips ?

I would go AMD and check out DFI-street forums.

They will give you a lot of nice tips ... also if you can get the 939 opty over the 3500+ you will have a cooler running chip.

I own the 3500+ with XP-90 HS or TT Golder Orb II it stays around 35 idle and 45 Full load (10 hours of gaming).

or my Opt175 with stock cooler is 22C idle and 28C after gaming for a while (have not hit a10 hour gamming window yet with it as It was built this weekend.

malatory
How in the heck do you swing 10 hours for anything, much less gaming? Color me not only jealous, but curious.


10 hours...I could find much to do with that, and even though I am a HUGE fan of gaming, that is not what I would choose.

Quote: Originally Posted by malatory I would go AMD and check out DFI-street forums. They will give you a lot of nice tips ... also if you can get the 939 opty over the 3500+ you will have a cooler running chip. I own the 3500+ with XP-90 HS or TT Golder Orb II it stays around 35 idle and 45 Full load (10 hours of gaming). or my Opt175 with stock cooler is 22C idle and 28C after gaming for a while (have not hit a10 hour gamming window yet with it as It was built this weekend.

Yeah just run superpi or something for 10hours instead of sitting there the whole time O.O

i go the P95 for over 10 hours for a true heat load, I like amd they run cool, stock mine would barely get over 30C with stock cooling. WC and OCed as far as i can it only goes 32C p95 stable after 13hrs.

in that ten hours i cought up on sleep, did hoemwork, watched a movie, and also changed the oil on my "Jap Trap" its a nickname for a 89Suzuki Sidekick.

I used to do 10 hour game session. Back in Mega Drive (Genesis) day's I played 1 game of Column's for for 2 day's, I paused the game and slept/drank but it must have been 15 hours + in two days. That was when I was 8 or 9 though.

I would for sure go AMD and pick up one of the opterons for sure! Atleast a 144 or something but if you got the cake drop it and get a 165 dual core! They clock like crazy! And Nothing else but DFI for motherboard!!



10 Hours for gaming! I pulled that a few years back with Black Hawk Down when it first came out! And played for 2 days before back on the REG nintendo playing metroid! LOL



Matt

I've got an Opteron 148 @ 3.2, its fast.

I think the most amount of time spent gaming for me would be 17 hours. Fear and CS:S back and forth.

Well, i'm always a fan of intel...it's been around longer and their processors are faster. It seems like more corperations support it too (even though i hate dell).....It seems like Intel is at the forefront of the technological swing. They just need to lower the heat on their processors. Example: My 1.8 ghz is overclocked to 2.3, and while playing oblivion, it stays at a steady 51 degrees C.

Its true Intels chips clock higher but they also do less work a cycle. Something to consider, which is why amd rates thier chips 2800+ which means it clocks slower than a 2.8Ghz intel but does just as good if not better than a intel 2.8

amd all the way.

Quote: Originally Posted by silvafish Well, i'm always a fan of intel...it's been around longer and their processors are faster. It seems like more corperations support it too (even though i hate dell).....It seems like Intel is at the forefront of the technological swing. They just need to lower the heat on their processors. Example: My 1.8 ghz is overclocked to 2.3, and while playing oblivion, it stays at a steady 51 degrees C.

They where both started withing 4 years of eachother. Only with the un-released Core Duo will they be faster than AMD... you remember the past 2 years now? Where they lost %20 market share becuase there processor sucked ass...give me a break. And what the heck does "corporation support it" mean? Dell uses Intel processors becuase they have a contract, and there is alot of money to be made in that contract.
Technology swing? Who made the first retail 64 bit processor? The first dual core? Both wich are compatible with any 939 motherboard practially made, unlike intel wich makes you buy a new revision to support there dualcore. Man you are twisted.

Im a fan of whatever is best


2001->Pentium 3 where alot nicer processor than the AMD's
-> During the 400FSB p4's the AMD's where alot faster
-> When the 800FSB HT p4's where out, Intel was alot faster, especially for multi tasking
2005-2006->AMD's Athlon 64 has killed the aged P4 (wich makes sense)
Current-> Intel will kill the aged Athlon 64(wich makes sense)

IMHO

Quote: Originally Posted by bikeboy541 amd all the way.

This thread is 3 months old, I would guess he has made up his mind by now.

At this point if he hasn't... Conroe is the only thing I would invest in