I pitty the fool that buys this.... lol

NickS_ said:
:rollingla LOL.

@ Kempez - you just make me want to strangle the fuck out of you sometimes :).

Shut it you 13yr old teenage Fuck. You're usually wrong on almost everything and never listen to anything anyone says :flamed: :banghead: :rollingla

I only give my honest opinions on the board...I never go for flaming anyone on purpose and I always try to give a balanced opinion. That is because I am MATURE and I listen to what people say. Grow up :o
 
name='Dave' said:
now now girls...thats enuf. dont make me close the thread plz

Not gonna mate. I've had my say and no more. I just wish some people would listen and learn instead of fanboy'ing and not listening :p
 
name='fordf250' said:
What is wrong with the 6xx cpus for gamming and when the new games come out that are setup for the dual cores?

Nothing mate when the new games come out.

At the moment tho...AMD pwns Intel in gaming. An X2 will still probably play games better.

Having said that, that price is very tempting!! :)
 
kempez815 said:
Nothing mate when the new games come out.

At the moment tho...AMD pwns Intel in gaming. An X2 will still probably play games better.

Having said that, that price is very tempting!! :)

Waste of money... waste of sperm... 'nuff said :p
 
name='FragTek' said:
You all must have forgotten the recent benchmark results of this fuckin pos chip, rofl rofl rofl.... :rollingla :rollingla :rollingla

You must've forgotten that the price for the "slowest" AMD x2 is over $200 more than that processor rofl rofl rofl. True, the AMD DC owns Intel DC, but for budget users who don't want to pay $537 for the cheapest AMD dual core processor, than Intel is still a good choice. It's not a POS processor, you'd use it if someone gave it to you if you were a budget user and had an older processor, and you know it.

Don't you just hate fanboys?
 
anonymous_c said:
You must've forgotten that the price for the "slowest" AMD x2 is over $200 more than that processor rofl rofl rofl. True, the AMD DC owns Intel DC, but for budget users who don't want to pay $537 for the cheapest AMD dual core processor, than Intel is still a good choice. It's not a POS processor, you'd use it if someone gave it to you if you were a budget user and had an older processor, and you know it.

Don't you just hate fanboys?

To be fair I* wouldn't say this was for a budget user. With the OC'ing potential of two cores, this could well be OC'ers main Intel Proc IMO.

And he's right Frag...you are fanboying!!

I think these are decent procs for the cash....if I has the cash I would buy one and build a DC intel system!! :) :)
 
anonymous_c said:
You must've forgotten that the price for the "slowest" AMD x2 is over $200 more than that processor rofl rofl rofl. True, the AMD DC owns Intel DC, but for budget users who don't want to pay $537 for the cheapest AMD dual core processor, than Intel is still a good choice. It's not a POS processor, you'd use it if someone gave it to you if you were a budget user and had an older processor, and you know it.

Don't you just hate fanboys?

welcome to the forums!

i do agree that intel making this processor "cheap" was a good move because it does suck in comparison, but i will be interested to see how overclockable it is. anyway i hope u stick around.

btw does anybody know which cores the DC cpu's use? intel and amd
 
Dave said:
welcome to the forums!

i do agree that intel making this processor "cheap" was a good move because it does suck in comparison, but i will be interested to see how overclockable it is. anyway i hope u stick around.

btw does anybody know which cores the DC cpu's use? intel and amd

Intel will have Prescott, M (ummmm....Dothan?? not sure) and Celery Dual Cores out. okilt dokily?

Not to sure about AMD. I assume that as they are on 90nm with both a mb and 1/2mb of L2 they are Venice and San Diego respectively :)
 
I wonder if you could plant a XP-120 on top of that thing and grill a couple of polish sausage? That thing uses over 230w (well, the entire system does) under load.

Intel needs to get a handle on this kind of power consumption...maybe 65nm will do it. Then again, maybe 65nm won't.
 
Back
Top