shucks... I've been playing just fine with an 850 and a geforce 2 biggrin:

Although I can't rightfully see how anyone could drop like $500 just on a processor, even if it slightly out performs an AMD. Guess I'm just not rolling in cash like you guys. and arguing is futile anyway since both chip makers are constantly making improvements and changes. one company could be ahead one quarter, and a different one the next....who knows.

It's just a matter of "when you buy" and "how much you're willing to spend". I've owned both intel and AMD based systems and have nothing against either. at this point in time, both offer more power than 99% of people really need anyway...

Well my brother on wednesday is placing an order for a 2.4ghz(b) (133mhz fsb) pentium 4 with a motherboard and some ddr-ram. ed:

The above setup will make my sd-ram 1.33ghz thunderbird look very slow ffs :(

with 2.4ghz he can easily get 3ghz out of it and possibly a few hundred mhz more and the real laugh is its a pc thats not for games playing, he does a lot of video encoding which rapes cpu time so he needs the fastest cpu he can get (well affordable anyway). His gfx card will be a radeon 8500 dv.

Time for me to think about an upgrade, considering the radeon r-350 when thats released and a pentium 4 setup as im pissed off with amd's.

[quote:f8e07]shucks... I've been playing just fine with an 850 and a geforce 2

Although I can't rightfully see how anyone could drop like $500 just on a processor, even if it slightly out performs an AMD. Guess I'm just not rolling in cash like you guys. and arguing is futile anyway since both chip makers are constantly making improvements and changes. one company could be ahead one quarter, and a different one the next....who knows.

It's just a matter of " when you buy" and "how much you're willing to spend". I've owned both intel and AMD based systems and have nothing against either. at this point in time, both offer more power than 99% of people really need anyway...[/quote:f8e07]

I'm from this school of thought - the MOST I use my computer for is 3D MAX - and I still only REALLY need RAM to make that program move smoothly. I've used a friends p4 and honest to god wasn't convinced I need anymore processing speed.

As far as gaming is concerned - I REALLY dont need to see the fur on the ALLIED jackets to feel fulfilled.

I think ALOT of this comes from this desire to not be left "behind" in the tech-race. As soon as a game tells me I need more processing speed to compete - then I'll upgrade. Till then, I've very comfortable not shelling out that kind of cash.

Well, congrats on getting your new computer. My friend just bought a Dell 4500, and stayed home today because it's either coming today, tomorrow, or the day after, but, he still insists on missing school for it, I, on the other hand, am dehydrated because I went on a trip to Universal Studios this last weekend, and sweated all 120oz. of soda off in less than 2 days. My computer is pretty good, just upgraded to 512MB SDRAM, tried to upgrade to an ATI Radeon 7000, figured it doesn't fit in my computer, don't know why; but, I have an ATI Rage Pro II 16MB, which running on MEDIUM and 16-Bit graphics on MOH is 80 ping on my 2.2MBit/268kb. I have a P4 1.8GHz, and my other computer has an AMD K6-2 550MHz, now, of course there's a huge difference between those two, but I see no problem with either of them, when I got my HP (AMD), it was top of the line, and everybody wanted to play it; now, 3 weeks later, 700MHz was the best....I love my Dell, P4 is working fine, no need to overclock it, though I could easily get 2.4GHz, I feel no need for anything over 900MHz. I mean, the most I've seen a game needing was 700MHz, 16MB gfx, and 128MB RAM, so, I'm perfectly fine except for my damn gfx card.

LOL... I was bored and surfing around on tom's hardware site and found out I was more right about the processor race constantly switching hands than I thought.

about 2 weeks ago AMD came outta nowhere with the athlon xp 2600+, beating intel's best offering. it used their recently released thoroughbred core and could handle being overclocked.

THEN, a mere 5 days later intel launched their P4 2.8, beating AMD down again.

Due to the overclocking ability of the 2600+, AMD is rumored to be going for 2800+ in october. and you know intel will have something to fight back with like a P4 3066 (although I still can't seem to help noticing the huge price differences...and that's an unbiased opinion, it's just a fact that intel is hundreds more)

and this sort of thing is bound to happen over and over again. it's just an ever flip-flopping quest for speed that doesn't seem to have an end. and I think the only people who really care about having whatever is fastest are the ones that:

1. have a lot of money
2. just like bragging rights for being the "first" with something (even though in no time flat something better will come out)

the articles are interesting from a technology standpoint just to see how development progresses these days though:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020826/index.html
(this article is about the P4 taking the lead, but it's interesting no matter which company you may "side" with if any)

I was just at the AMD site and their fastest now is the XP 2200 but they are coming out with 2400 and 2600 shortly which will match the P4 2.8 . So who knows what to buy and when ?? biggrin:

exactly my point biggrin:

i've got the 4 speaker sub/ set. the z-560's. best 4.1 speaker sound for the price. right now on e of my speakers is wierd cause a friend droped it on the ground. i'll have to take it in, or mabey its just the mp3's. mabey its the wire

Just got my computer games mag, and well looky here. A speaker test. Z-560's win out over Klipsch Promedi 5.1. Mostly on the basis of insane price for the Klipsch.