Posts from "Iron" theme. Auto-translated

In this thread, I suggest we discuss everything related to the most important thing – our computers! To get things started: what's better, a **Radeon or a GeForce**?

See my userbar :) In short, in the mid-range price segment, the companies are roughly on par, in the budget segment, ATi has a slight lead, and in the high-end segment, NVidia does. As a result, their market shares are approximately comparable, with a slight advantage for the latter. Although, the situation may have changed somewhat. In any case, Nvidia is currently in a more advantageous position. However, the undisputed leader remains Intel, which occupies a large part of the market, however strange that may sound. Personally, I prefer Nvidia, although I wouldn't refuse interesting and advantageous offers from the competing company. ATi just needs to improve its drivers, and everything will be fine for them :) The only question is when this will happen...

I voted for nVidia, even though I currently have a Radeon card. Radeon is now releasing very powerful cards, but, as Vortex said, their drivers aren't perfect. As for the price: I don't know... if you need a cheap office computer, wouldn't it be easier to buy a board with an integrated video card?

A question to get us started: which is better, a 4-core processor with a lower clock speed, or a 2-core processor with a higher clock speed, for the same price? Specifically, I would like to compare these two:

CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 2.40GHz, 8Mb, 1066MHz Socket-775
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E8400, 3.0GHz, 6Mb, 1333MHz Socket-775

The price is approximately the same; the quad-core is slightly more expensive, and it is manufactured using a 65-nanometer process, while the other is manufactured using a 45-nm process. And there are several other differences.

For now, the benefits of using 4 cores aren't fully realized except on servers and high-end computers, so for home use, I recommend a 2-core processor.

As far as I know, some games do utilize multiple cores. Crysis, for example, heavily loads 3 cores (though not 4 :o) + future projects. That's the issue. Personally, I'm more inclined towards 2-core solutions because it's unclear when projects designed for more than 2 cores will appear. Perhaps by that time, the "quad-core" will be completely outdated, while the E8400 will still be relevant.

Go for the Core 2 Extreme!!! It's the best! I'll tell you about this processor: it has 4 cores, and each core has very high purity (not to be confused with power). This purity also affects its overclocking potential. Processors like this are preferred by those who like to overclock and do it without any negative consequences. Yes, yes! Intel itself made them specifically for overclocking. In general, go for a 4-core processor; data processing will be much faster.

If you're buying it for home use, I'd recommend a dual-core processor. Let me explain: most games these days are optimized for dual cores. Plus, older games (like F.E.A.R. or Oblivion) don't support multi-core processing and will only run on one core. Moreover, the E8400 is powerful enough, and its potential will last for a long time, including the era of quad-core processors. There aren't any games right now that will fully utilize the potential of the Q6600 processor. If you're worried that the era of quad-core processors is coming soon, even if that happens, the Quad Q6600 will still be relatively weak, plus there's the issue of compatibility with older games. Choose what's available now.
to WitcheR-L, I think the person is leaning towards a decision, also considering the financial aspect.

to WitcheR-L, it seems like the person is also considering the financial aspect when making a decision.

Understood.
And just a little note, if you're going to get two, choose a motherboard with some headroom, or rather, one that can handle a quad-core processor in the future. In my opinion, that's the best option. But since I see that the 775 socket is still being used, there's no need to worry. Unlike AMD, where the system is completely different=((.

Thank you for the advice! Friends, does anyone know where I can find tests for these processors, as well as their temperature performance? I looked at 3DNews.ru and Overclockers.ru, but I didn't find anything useful >_< Can you suggest anything?

Manufacturer Intel
Model Core 2 Duo Processor E8400
Description Processor for desktop computers. Actual processor clock speed is 3.0 GHz.
Package FC-LGA6
Processor socket Socket LGA775
Bus frequency 1333 MHz
L1 cache 64 KB x2
L2 cache 6144 KB
Hyper Threading support No
64-bit support Yes
Cooling system noise reduction technologies Enhanced Halt State (C1E), Enhanced Intel Speedstep
Core Wolfdale
Number of cores 2
Multiplier 9
Power dissipation 65 W
Critical temperature 72.4°C
Technology 0.045 μm
Supply voltage 0.85 ~ 1.3625 V
Other Supports additional instruction sets: SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1, supports EVP technology (Enhanced Virus Protection or Execute Disable Bit), supports Intel Virtualization Technology. Processor cooler included.
Package dimensions 17 x 15.2 x 9.8 cm
Gross weight 0.404 kg
Link to manufacturer's website www.intel.com
________________________________________
WARNING This processor requires a motherboard that supports Conroe processors to operate. It will not work on older boards, such as the P5WD2 Premium and P5WD2-E Premium.
Manufacturer Intel
Model Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600
Description Processor for desktop computers. Actual processor clock speed is 2.4 GHz.
Package FC-LGA6
Processor socket Socket LGA775
Bus frequency 1066 MHz
L1 cache 64 KB x 4
L2 cache 4096 KB x2
Hyper Threading support No
64-bit support Yes
Core Kentsfield
Number of cores 4
Multiplier 9
Power dissipation 105 W
Critical temperature 62.2 °C
Technology 0.065 μm
Supply voltage 1.100 ~ 1.372 V
Other Supports additional instruction sets: SSE, SSE2, SSE3, supports EVP technology (Enhanced Virus Protection or Execute Disable Bit), supports Intel Virtualization Technology. Processor cooler included
Link to manufacturer's website www.intel.com

Wow... are they going to open a store here soon?:mad:
If I need to buy a video card, I'll just download the price list.

Video cards.
I only work with Nvidia. And I advise you to do the same.

But I recommend Radeon – they are more reliable cards.:smile54:

I recommend Radeon – they are more reliable cards.

Nothing is reliable, especially Sapphire, which overheated up to 90 degrees. Nvidia didn't even come close to such high temperatures. Nvidia releases drivers that improve the performance of its cards, while Radeon releases them less frequently. Plus, most games are made for Nvidia, and for Radeon, they release additional utilities. Nvidia works better with games than Radeon. I can't help but mention that in recent months, Radeon has started to rise in the market, releasing more powerful video cards, and most importantly, the prices have become acceptable in terms of price-quality ratio. Regarding the topic, I'll say one thing: where do these prices come from? Is this a wholesale store? Or have I not checked the price lists for a long time?
P.S. Sorry for the off-topic, I'm just defending the honor of Nvidia.

Mods, please move the discussion about maps to another thread; there's already one in this section.

And I'll add my two cents to the off-topic discussion:

If before, the two giant video adapter manufacturers were in direct competition, now their paths have diverged. NVIDIA has chosen the path of creating hot, huge, and extremely powerful video cards, in other words, monsters (just look at the latest GTX 260 and GTX 280). ATI has chosen almost the opposite path, creating economical and affordable video cards with huge efficiency (that is, the highest performance for a reasonable price). ATI probably won't produce monsters, but nothing prevents anyone from assembling a Crossfire configuration. I saw a test of a new product that should appear in Russia soon; its name is Radeon 4850. The recommended price is $200, and its performance is comparable to the GeForce 9800 GTX. You know, I'm excited and I'm already considering this video card, or its more powerful version (Radeon 4870) for the future. And... I want to immediately disappoint you: we will see the Radeon 4850 in Russia for $200 very soon, because everyone knows what the attitude towards recommended prices is in our country. Unfortunately.

In general, I'm not a fan of either manufacturer. This isn't a cell phone; it's a video card, and you don't often see it. Therefore, I don't understand those who are ardent supporters of one manufacturer. You need to buy what you can afford and what is better in terms of performance for the price, as well as a number of other indicators. Today, this is the case in many segments with NVIDIA. But what will happen tomorrow? When analysts predict incredible success for the red and white brand, and also that it will take about 10% of the market from its competitor, you can't help but wonder...

Nvidia didn't even come close to having such high numbers.

No need to exaggerate – I had a GT7300 with passive cooling – after 2 hours of operation, you could fry an egg on it.

Nvidia releases drivers that improve the performance of their cards, while Radeon releases them less often.

Radeon also releases updates, Catalyst, maybe less often – I won't argue, but the fact that Nvidia advertises more and their cards are cheaper doesn't necessarily indicate quality, but rather the opposite;)
I would say this: Nvidia is mass-produced, and that's all... Maybe they have good cards now, but I'm not used to trusting this brand – I remember all sorts of Riva TNTs too well...
And what about Stalker? Nvidia 7300gs refuses to handle this graphics, no matter how many drivers I install, and it's not a small amount, PCIe 256MB, but a simple AGP Radeon 9200 works perfectly...