FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Athlon 64 X2 vs Intel Core-Duo





AutoTechGuy
OK guys.. here's the deal.. I had an Athlon XP2200... somehow fried the motherboard by removing the fan/heatsink to clean it (had been overheating)... anyways for the past several months I've been using my backup - an old 450MHZ Monorail computer... works ok.. just a bit slow and as a result can't enjoy my favorite games.

Anyways I now have the money to upgrade. I'm still on a tight budget, but wanting some advice. I can't decide between the A64X2 or the Core-duo.

I have $400 US to spend... I'll be needing the following:

- Motherboard (hard part is finding one with AGP because due to budget restraints I want to keep using my sweet AGP card. Later on should I decide to go PCI-e I will be in a better financial situation to put another MB in it, so PCI-e is not important to me now)

- Processor / Cooling fan

- Power Supply (and possibly a case.. I have several laying around but kind of want a new one)

- RAM

- SATA Hard drive (I can keep using my IDE drives for now and upgrade later... but from looking SATA drives aren't too expensive... and much faster)

If anyone has any experience or advice they can share with me, I'd love to read your input. I'm just trying to crank the most performance I can out of $400 without overclocking.

Thanks for your help!
Sunny
Core 2 duo for sure, Buy 1.8 Ghz if 2.4 doesn't fits in your budget, I am not aware of boards with AGP slots which support that processor, but I must say the new boards with onboard graphics are not that bad and they will give u the option to upgrade to PCI card later.
jay84h
I would recommend the Athlon 64 X2. You say your into nice games, right? AMD crushes Intel in reguards to gaming. So AMD all the way!
teko
AMD used to be ahead of Intel until they released the Core 2 duo chips. One thing going for AMD X2 chips is that they're cheaper than the Intel chips at the moment
Sunny
jay84h wrote:
I would recommend the Athlon 64 X2. You say your into nice games, right? AMD crushes Intel in reguards to gaming. So AMD all the way!


Read this review http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1 and i'm sure you will have to change your opinion and I must add this is the best and thorogh review I've seen in long time.
jay84h
teko wrote:
AMD used to be ahead of Intel until they released the Core 2 duo chips. One thing going for AMD X2 chips is that they're cheaper than the Intel chips at the moment


Do you realize that AMD has quad core chips out? People must not realize that AMD is more advanced than Intel and always will be more advanced thatr Intel, they will always be ahead of Intel.
Animal
jay84h wrote:
Do you realize that AMD has quad core chips out? People must not realize that AMD is more advanced than Intel and always will be more advanced thatr Intel, they will always be ahead of Intel.

You might want to read this article before you claim that AMD are more advanced...

The Register wrote:
With its new, tocked "Core" designs crammed into the market, Intel now plans to focus on the pragmatic part of its equation, moving quickly from 65nm manufacturing to 45nm.

"From our perspective, 65nm is kind of old news," said Intel manufacturing chief Tom Franz.

AMD, well behind on the 65nm front, looks to shrink the usual two-year lag between process generations by moving to 45nm within 18 months. Intel executives, however, characterized the 18-month plan as a figment of AMD's imagination until the rival chip maker can prove otherwise.

"They are so dreadfully behind," said Intel SVP Pat Gelsinger, adding that "you'd have to be nuts" to think AMD will come close to beating Intel to any manufacturing milestones.


Intel recently moved to developing 45nm chips while AMD are still on 65nm processors. Up until the release of the CoreDuo and Core2Duo processors, I may have agreed with you. But AMD are currently lagging behind Intel in a big way.
jay84h
Thing is, how accurate is that information. Intel will never be ahead of AMD, if they even attempt to, they will fail horribly because they have no idea what they would be getting themselves into. Intel is only planning ahead, they are not actually ahead as of yet. And currently from what I read, Intel is planning to skip processes ahead of AMD, which in turn will have them fail miserably. Intel does not have the technology to process these chips and they are thinking way too fast. If they make that decision, they will go down hill all the way.
Animal
jay84h wrote:
Thing is, how accurate is that information.

Well, it's sourced from both the BBC and The Register - they are generally pretty reliable.

jay84h wrote:
Intel will never be ahead of AMD, if they even attempt to, they will fail horribly because they have no idea what they would be getting themselves into. Intel is only planning ahead, they are not actually ahead as of yet. And currently from what I read, Intel is planning to skip processes ahead of AMD, which in turn will have them fail miserably. Intel does not have the technology to process these chips and they are thinking way too fast. If they make that decision, they will go down hill all the way.

Thing is, how accurate is that information? Do you know what the difference is between a 65nm production and a 45nm production? Are you aware of the effect that change will have on performance and power consumption? Or is all the comment above simply your own opinion?

Sources please!
jay84h
It's a fact, if you at all know anything about computers, than u will know that Intel will be making a big mistake juming ahead of AMD, they haven't even caught up to AMD. You actually think that Intel will succeed skipping over processors ahead of what AMD already has to offer? It's no good to rush things, that's what Intel would be doing wrong. AMD are being smart. You can ask any computer tech like myself, and they will tell you the exact same thing.
Animal
jay84h wrote:
It's a fact, if you at all know anything about computers, than u will know that Intel will be making a big mistake juming ahead of AMD, they haven't even caught up to AMD. You actually think that Intel will succeed skipping over processors ahead of what AMD already has to offer? It's no good to rush things, that's what Intel would be doing wrong. AMD are being smart. You can ask any computer tech like myself, and they will tell you the exact same thing.

And could you provide us with a reliable source for that opinion?
jay84h
There is no reliable source, it's just plain common sense LOL!
Animal
jay84h wrote:
There is no reliable source, it's just plain common sense LOL!

Well, that's fair enough - you are entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn't quote it as fact Wink

If you read the site that Sunny suggested (more specifically this page, you will see that clock-for-clock, Intel Core2Duo beat AMD substantially every single time. For example, in the Office Productivity test, the 1.86GHz Intel Core2Duo beat the 2.8GHz Athlon 64 FX-62. Admittedly, that was only one test, but in every single one of the tests shown, the 1.86GHz Core2Duo out-performed the 2.2GHz Athlon X2. I just really don't understand how you can say that in light of these results, AMD are better, and Intel "haven't even caught up to AMD".

I should say that I'm not being an Intel fanboy here - I'm still running a PC with one of the first Pentium 4 Mobile processors, and I'll be the first to admit that most AMD processors at the time would have out-performed the P4. But the current generation of Intel processors is far superior to AMD's current offerings, and this sentiment seems to be mirrored throughout the industry.
jay84h
It's useless even explaing this to someone how loves Intel, of course if your an Intel fan your going to go for them, by all means. But it's just rediculous the way your talking about the matter, if your not a computer tech, then don't talk about it from experts who know the facts.
Animal
jay84h wrote:
It's useless even explaing this to someone how loves Intel, of course if your an Intel fan your going to go for them, by all means.

As I said... I'm not especially an Intel fan.

jay84h wrote:
But it's just rediculous the way your talking about the matter, if your not a computer tech, then don't talk about it from experts who know the facts.

Ok... really... please give me a link to a "computer tech" or "expert" website that will educate me in the way of the "facts" of your argument. As far as I'm concerned, a processor is technically best with high performance and low power consumption - in the tests and links I have provided, it shows that the Intel Core2Duo's have higher performance ratings than the AMD processors on test. I don't think that can be disputed... so I would be very interested to see a source that explains why AMD processors are technically better than the current Intel processors.

You're accusing me of being "ridiculous", and a "non-computer tech" even though I have provided links and valid reasons for my argument. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are not proving your point of view. That, I'm sorry to say, makes you sound more like an AMD fan than a computer-tech.
jay84h
You do realize that AMD has quad processors out right?
Animal
Yes. But are you implying that Intel don't?
Zyphrius
AutoTechGuy

I am a computer Tech and a computer Gamer, I just built my own gaming computer not long ago.

So u need some hardware for gaming at low prices, I will provide some suggestions and I hope u will find them helpful.

$400 US should be able to get most of what u want.

I am in Canada so some sites I provide may be Canadian, i will try to limit that. Sorry if this is an inconvenience.

Motherboard - I would definetly recommend a LanParty seeing how you stated you are a gamer, check this site for their boards www.dfi.com
(I am not aware if u will be able to get a board that supports either an AMD X2 or Core2DUO and be able to have an AGP slot, but just check the site u may get lucky!)

If you are not able to find a Motherboard that you like their try an ASUS board they are second to LanParty for gaming in my opinion. http://usa.asus.com/search.aspx?searchitem=1&searchkey=motherboard

That link will bring u directly to there motherboards.

Processor / Cooling fan - First for the cooling fan Heat sink, I recommend Zalman, they are perfect for keeping your system cool and run very quite.
http://www.zalman.co.kr/eng/eng_index.asp

They make fans that are specific for AMD and also Intel, so either processor you go with Zalman can handle it.

Seeing how there is an argument over the processor I will speak on that last.

RAM - I would suggest getting a pack of Dual Channel RAM (approx. 1GB) of either GEIL or OCZ. I use Geil but that does not mean there is anything wrong with OCZ, they are both top of the line, just search both types and read some reviews and make your decision there.

SATA Hard drive - These drives are indeed faster I have a Raptor as my main hard drive, it's speed is 10,000RPM it is a Western Digital, I also have a Samsung Sata for my secondary, it is a 7200RPM, they work great. I have had no hitches and they are not very expensive. Just check any computer store for them.

Now for the BIG question which of the two big rival processors will you choose. Well...

I personally am a fan of AMD, i have always considered AMD to be the processor to use when gaming, I mean, when AMD first showed it's face almost everyone turned up their nose to it, because everyone knew and loved the Intel, basically because Intel was a proven technology.

I finally gave AMD a chance when I heard other Gamers praising it, only issue was heat (Which has since peen corrected). Intel was not processing at the same speed or efficiency at the time. Intel finally came out with the P4 and was still a generation behind AMD, at least that is how it seemed to me.

Now AMD has the Athlon 64 X2 and Intel has the Core2Duo, this was where Intel attempted a comeback, and they came close, but... I would still say AMD is winning for Gamers and overall, but Intel is quite close. AMD has the QUAD core out now, I am not sure on Intel if they have it out yet or not, but they are at least close.

According to our friend Animal Intel is thinking about and preparing to take the next step in processing power, I have not heard if AMD is taking this step yet or not. This is a good step, I just think it may be too soon. But it would be very nice. Only time will tell.

Our friend jay84h, is definetly an AMD fan and it seems nothing will change his mind on that. Good for him he has made his decision which is a big thing, but like always you should keep an open mind.

So finally, AutoTechGuy, my personal favorite is the AMD, the X2 is a great technology and it is currently cheaper in price than the Intel, I find it is better for gaming if that is what you are after. But the Intel should provide you with either the same or pretty close in performance. In other words which ever manufacturer you are most familiar with personally and trust the most go with it, this is obviously a case where you will get people like me and jay84h who prefer the AMD and people like Sunny and Animal who appear to prefer Intel. Make your decision wisely and enjoy...

As for the case, save your money for now and buy a new one when you have some extra cash to spend, and remember to think cooling and space above all, afet that consider what the case looks like.

So enjoy your experience... I hope this post helped!! Sorry for being so long winded....
AutoTechGuy
Here's what I ended up getting:

ASRock DualVSTA Motherboard
2GB DDR2
Core2Duo E6300 (1.86Ghz)
Lite-On DVD-rom/CD-rw combo drive
WD 160GB SATA HD


I reused:

My old case/power supply (only 300w, but will upgrade later if needed)
CD-ROM drive
XFX GEForce 6200 AGP video card
Wireless NIC
Mouse/Keyboard/Monitor/Speakers
XP Home


So far, so good! I'm quite impressed with the performance of this system. Total investment on the new parts including shipping and everything was under $450. Sims2 absolutely flies for the wife.. and my favorite game, ACES HIGH II, has double the framerates with higher graphics settings than in my old system. Before I got 25-30 at 1024X768 with "mid range" graphics settings... now I get 55-75 at 1280X1024 with almost the highest graphics settings.

I had absolutely no problems with the install... including hardware AND software. I kept waiting for something to go amiss as it went smoother than any other system I've ever built, but it never did! Well I did have ONE tiny problem... video card was getting quite hot. It has a heatsink but no fan, so I installed the processor fan from my old AMD XP2200 system onto the video heatsink and it more than solved that problem.

What surprises me the most though, is how cool the processor runs. I haven't done any overclocking yet, and the processor stays below 85f in a 70f room.. below 90f during heavy usage. This is with the stock sink/fan, and with the CPU stuffed under a desk. I'm quite impressed with how this turned out and it is much, much faster than I had anticipated. My old AMD chip would push 140-150f on a regular basis, even after several re-applications of artic silver and 3 different brands of heatsink/fans!

Thank you guys for the advise!
jay84h
My NEW specs as listed in my signature, although I may convert the OCZ RAM to GEIL.
tomahawk19
jay84h wrote:
teko wrote:
AMD used to be ahead of Intel until they released the Core 2 duo chips. One thing going for AMD X2 chips is that they're cheaper than the Intel chips at the moment


Do you realize that AMD has quad core chips out? People must not realize that AMD is more advanced than Intel and always will be more advanced thatr Intel, they will always be ahead of Intel.


I hate to burst your bubble, but AMD has not released the quad core chips yet. I spoke with AMD just a couple days ago, and they will not be released for a couple months to the general public.
Bones
jay84h wrote:
You do realize that AMD has quad processors out right?


Intel also has quad core cpus on the market:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=20958&vpn=BX80562QX6700&manufacture=Intel

I admit, I am a hardcore AMD fan and will probably stick with them till the bitter end, BUT currently, Intel chips are performing better than comparable AMD chips.

This is likely a good thing for AMD though, as I am sure that the competiton will make AMD work twice as hard so that they can once again have the best cpu's on the planet!
jay84h
AMD will always be on top, check out this, thought it may be a quad core, it does list it as a Quad FX Dual Core processor:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=21224&vpn=ADAFX72DIBOX&manufacture=AMD[/url]
Bones
You can argue with us all you like, but you can't argue with the numbers.
That is a dual core cpu.

By the way, for all you AMD fans out there, from what I have been reading, the quad core AMD Barcelona chips are outperforming the Intel quads by up to 40% and are expected to be released in mid 2007.

Also Jay, I'm wondering how you like the cpu that you are currently running? I am building a new pc in the next couple of months and have been looking hard at the X2 4600. How happy are you with it?
jay84h
I am very impressed with it, I got my X2 4600 processor chip bundled with my motherboard, ram, and heatsink and I sove $100 from it's regular price, which was wicked. I am indeed impressed with gameplay, messaging, downloading, managing, anything you can think of. It is indeed a much more impressive processor than previous ones, obviously haha. I would recommend you the X2 4600, you'll notice a difference.
psycosquirrel
Intel Core 2 Duo is better than AMD. This may change with Barcelona, but that is only EXTREME high-end. We haven't seen any Barcelona benchies yet though, so who knows at this point.

Look up some benchmarks. It is unquestionable that Core 2 Duo is better.

I'm an AMD user too, I don't understand why you can't accept that AMD < Intel, Jay.
jay84h
I see, I checked it out, it's pretty much true, Intel > AMD. However, when Barcelona comes out, there is no question, that AMD will once again CRUSH Intel.
pll
jay84h wrote:
realize that AMD is more advanced than Intel and always will be more advanced thatr Intel, they will always be ahead of Intel.

Why are you so ANTI-Intel ? You don't like them ?
Why ?
jay84h
LOL, You didn't check my last post. I am not ANTI-Intel, I don't have anything against them, I used to use Intel until I tried games on an AMD. I like to game, not edit videos, AMD will always be for gaming, Intel will always be for video encoding. If I liked to encode videos more than game, than I would probably go Intel, but AMD are usually a step higher than them.
Zyphrius
Well jay84h,

To tell you the truth, I can understand why some people can become confused with your views from how you have been talking, but your last few posts are better in showing that you have an open mind to these things.

And pll I think you should check all posts before posting like that again, he did conciede in saying that he realized Intel was performing a little better lately.

Overall I think everyone can agree that Intel and AMD are great processors, they have each lead the other at different times.

I do agree with jay84h that Intel is better for video encoding and such things, and AMD is dominating in gaming expierience, I am also a gamer so i still prefer AMD overall.

Enjoy it in all things people!
psycosquirrel
jay84h wrote:
LOL, You didn't check my last post. I am not ANTI-Intel, I don't have anything against them, I used to use Intel until I tried games on an AMD. I like to game, not edit videos, AMD will always be for gaming, Intel will always be for video encoding. If I liked to encode videos more than game, than I would probably go Intel, but AMD are usually a step higher than them.

Processing performance doesn't vary from app to app. A better processor will process better, and therefore, Intel is better than AMD for gaming. Sorry, your logic is flawed.
jay84h
Intel has a type of processor that is made for Video encoding, yes it maybe good for games, BUT AMD makes there processors that can handle the processes that games need, much fluidly. AMD cannot encode video faster than Intel, no matter how fast the processor chip. Intel's chip is designed to encode fast no matter what. That is the same aspect for AMD in regards to gaming.
psycosquirrel
Apparently you know NOTHING about processor design.

In the end, all a processor does is basic adding of ones and zeros. The faster it does that, the faster it will perform. The cache will affect things some (hence why Core 2 Duo absolutely dominates in encoding), but the architecture of Core 2 Duo performs calculations faster and more efficiently than Athlon. Therefore, it is overall a faster processor, and therefore, better for gaming. There are not multiple types of processing (unless you go into quantum computing, or things of that sort. I am talking about only involving PCs here). Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD, and therefore, is better for gaming.
Bones
Personally, I think that it's great that Intel is currently out in front. I think the competition makes both companies work all that much harder to make a better product than the other. They both make great chips.

If one of them had a monopoly, then they wouldn't have to work near as hard because hey, everyone is going to buy them anyway.
jay84h
psycosquirrel wrote:
Apparently you know NOTHING about processor design.


Speak for yourself, it's pretty degrading that people don't actually know how processors are designed and what they are designed for.
psycosquirrel
I normally speak for myself, but it is pretty clear that you know absolutely nothing about how processors work. It also is clear that you won't be convinced that Intel is currently better than AMD. I'm a Computer Engineer at Georgia Tech, and I am telling you that, while I have not taken any classes on processor design, I know enough basics to completely refute your statements about AMD's "superiority" for gaming systems.

You are wrong. You have seen the benchmarks. You have been presented all the facts, and yet you still have confidence that a clearly inferior product is superior. At this point, you are being ignorant. I will agree that your processor is an excellent chip and more than gets the job done for your needs. But I am saying that Intel has better chips for the same price.

I am done arguing with you, I refuse to converse with someone who ignorantly ignores fact, believing his or her components are always superior to everyone else's. All I ask is that you stop saying AMD is superior, because there is so much evidence to the contrary, and you CLEARLY have no idea what you are talking about.

Thank you and have a nice life.
-Dave
jay84h
Question is, how long can Intel stay on top before screwing it up? Keep that in mind when AMD comes back, thanks.
psycosquirrel
Laughing

All I can do at this point is laugh at you.
Bones
psycosquirrel wrote:


In the end, all a processor does is basic adding of ones and zeros. The faster it does that, the faster it will perform. The cache will affect things some (hence why Core 2 Duo absolutely dominates in encoding), but the architecture of Core 2 Duo performs calculations faster and more efficiently than Athlon. Therefore, it is overall a faster processor, and therefore, better for gaming. There are not multiple types of processing (unless you go into quantum computing, or things of that sort. I am talking about only involving PCs here). Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD, and therefore, is better for gaming.



Are you sure about AMD not being superior for gaming? (with the exception of the core duo cpu's.)

I only ask because for several years now, it seems to be generally accepted that if you want to game, go with AMD. Perhaps this is because untill the release of core duo, that AMD has been ahead of the game.

I don't know enough about cpu design to make any sort of informed opinion on the subject. I'm not asking because I disagree with you, I'm only asking because everyone says if you game..use AMD.
psycosquirrel
Before the release of Core 2 Duo, AMD dominated for gaming, primarily because their Athlon architecture was much better than Northwood and other Intel cores of the time. That was before though. Now that Core 2 Duo is out, anyone building a system (gaming or otherwise) shouldn't even consider AMD because Core 2 Duo is so much better. Unfortunately, many fanboys (like jay), continue to insist that AMD is better for gaming, even though they acknowledge that Athlons are overpowered by Core 2 Duos.

Of course, budget and single-core systems should probably go with AMD's Athlon or Athlon X2 line, because the non Core 2 Duo Intel chips run hot and are outperformed by Athlons. Once the build is past $500ish though, the builder should definitely go with an e4300 or better. DDR2 is down in price enough, and Core 2 Duo is good enough, to force Athlon into obsoletion.
pll
jay84h wrote:
Do you realize that AMD has quad core chips out?

Intel too ! The QX6600 : 4x2,4ghz !
psycosquirrel
AMD is releasing quad-core in June actually. They only have dual-core now Very Happy

Intel has had quad-core for more than a month now Cool
jay84h
All I can say, is we will see. Some of you people may laugh, but everything I say is true. You guys admitted that AMD brang Intel down when they released the Athlon right? Well that's exactly what will happen when AMD quad core comes out. Don't deny it, because it's stupid to be denying what your admitting in the first place, when AMD released the Athlon's, they we're fierce, you admitted it. Now, quad core comes out, same thing will happen. Obviously I am a "fanboy" of AMD, I have used Intel, and no matter which Intel I use, AMD outperforms bar none.
psycosquirrel
Okay....

Well your "experiences" differ from reality. So please stop acting like, in reality, for all users, that Athlon X2 > C2D.

Wow, 999 posts. I think I'll save 1000 for tomorrow Very Happy
psycosquirrel
Er... off by two posts Shocked
jay84h
Dude, I just told you experiences AND reality, when AMD came out with the Athlon processor, it dominated Intel's. So Intel cmade the Core 2 Duo, I am saying that when AMD brings in the quad core, it's going to do the same thing that the Athlon did. Your saying, experiences??? Dude you just admitted a few posts ago that the Athlon took out Intel's processor when it came out, that was "REALITY". LOL
Zyphrius
ok....

I think we can all agree that AMD and Intel are both excellent processors, AMD has lead and Intel has lead in performace at different times.

When AMD came out with the Athlon they took the lead and held it for a long time. Now Intel has the Core2Duo and it appears that it has taken the lead back once more, I have also heard that Intel got Quad core out already so they managed to get it out before AMD.

I find that kinda odd personnaly. The reason I say that is because they are in the lead already and then they come out with the Quad Core, why not wait for AMD to have their Quad Core out which will happen in a few months, that way we would have seen how much AMD's Quad Core would have passed the Core2Duo, then when Intel came out with their Quad Core, then they would compare the two Quad Core's.

Now when AMD comes out it will be compared to the Core2Duo and the Quad core, personnaly i find that approach a little wierd. If I were intel I would have waited a few months for AMD to have the Quad Core out so they could still sell the Core2Duo and see if they still outperformed. Then to come out with their Quad Core and see if they were on top at that time.

But ohwell it did not happen this way. I personnaly am an AMD fan myself and I hope the AMD Quad Core will outperform Intel's so they can take the lead again.

I love the competiton between the two of them because it forces them to make better and better processors.

Enjoy it in all things people!
mystzero
Well, there is no clear winner in this microprocessor race. If you were to debate on who produces better microprocessors, then it will never end. Intel and AMD both have their own architecture in manufacturing microprocessors and they have their own ways of implementing new technologies. Currently, AMD is not merely focusing on multicore technologies. Instead, their main aim is to create a microprocessor which comprises of a GPU and a general purpose processor codenamed AMD Fusion. This actually results from the merger between AMD and ATI. Meanwhile, Intel emphasizes on multicores. They plan to squeeze as many cores as possible on a single die. And, remember that AMD is still adopting the 65nm fabrication process to manufacture microprocessors while Intel is on the verge of adopting the 45nm fabrication process (Penryn core) soon.
psycosquirrel
Another thing to consider for the future is core scalability. Supposedly Barcelona will outperform Core 2 Duo, but AMD, Intel, ATI, and NVIDIA ALWAYS exaggerate their products. So right now, Intel wins. We will have to wait until June to see.
Zyphrius
I would have to agree with that. Manufacturers will always exaggerate what their products can do to try and get people more interested in their products before they actually get realeased.

So all you can really do is hypethoize on what they will do and when the day arrives that they are realesed is when we will find out if they live up to the hype.

As I have said before I cannot wait for the AMD Quad Core to arrive and I hope it outperforms the Intel, that way AMD can be back on top for awhile and make Intel sweat again, so that will produce yet another processor to rival and possibly overcome the AMD, which inturn will make AMD make another new processor aswell.

Basically the more they compete and beat the other the better for all of us.

And it helps for there to be people loyal to AMD and people loyal to Intel because this will help drive the competition between the two even more.


Also... wow I never heard of the Penryn core, does that actually compare to being a 8 core processor, if so WOW!!!! That's impresive!!
Bones
psycosquirrel wrote:
Before the release of Core 2 Duo, AMD dominated for gaming, primarily because their Athlon architecture was much better than Northwood and other Intel cores of the time. That was before though. Now that Core 2 Duo is out, anyone building a system (gaming or otherwise) shouldn't even consider AMD because Core 2 Duo is so much better. Unfortunately, many fanboys (like jay), continue to insist that AMD is better for gaming, even though they acknowledge that Athlons are overpowered by Core 2 Duos.


Thanks for the response, it makes sense now Very Happy
psycosquirrel
No problem, that is what I am here for Very Happy


As for the new Barcelona cores-- I hope they do outperform Core 2 Duo so I can pick up an awesome Conroe for dirt-cheap when Intel slashes the prices down to stay competitive. They overclock really well, and I have watercooling to deal with the enormous thermal output, so it would be more than worth the upgrade.
Bones
psycosquirrel wrote:
Apparently you know NOTHING about processor design.

In the end, all a processor does is basic adding of ones and zeros. The faster it does that, the faster it will perform. The cache will affect things some (hence why Core 2 Duo absolutely dominates in encoding), but the architecture of Core 2 Duo performs calculations faster and more efficiently than Athlon. Therefore, it is overall a faster processor, and therefore, better for gaming. There are not multiple types of processing (unless you go into quantum computing, or things of that sort. I am talking about only involving PCs here). Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD, and therefore, is better for gaming.



I happened to stumble on some benchmarks today between some of the newer AMD chips and the core 2's. If their results are accurate, then I have to disagree with this statement.

The core 2 duo chips are seriously outperforming the AMD chips in things like office applications and 3d rendering, but according to these benchmarks, there is VERY little difference when it comes to games, which seems to refute what you have been saying.

Here is the link:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096655,00.asp

Yes the core 2 is still better even in the games sector, with low end graphics, the core duo's are still a fair amount ahead, but when you start getting into higher end graphics, the difference is virtually non-existant.

This seems to suggest that the AMD architecture when it comes to processing high end graphics is still right up there with Intel.
fadirocks
I've seen the BS hardware tests well there under 32bit environment if you like to compare AMD vs Intel compare AMD under its native processing which is 64bit vs Intel 32bit then you'll see true power of AMD also maybe to be tested under a better OS other than MS junk

Anyways speed per $ AMD is usually the money saver
jay84h
Bones wrote:
psycosquirrel wrote:
Apparently you know NOTHING about processor design.

In the end, all a processor does is basic adding of ones and zeros. The faster it does that, the faster it will perform. The cache will affect things some (hence why Core 2 Duo absolutely dominates in encoding), but the architecture of Core 2 Duo performs calculations faster and more efficiently than Athlon. Therefore, it is overall a faster processor, and therefore, better for gaming. There are not multiple types of processing (unless you go into quantum computing, or things of that sort. I am talking about only involving PCs here). Core 2 Duo outperforms AMD, and therefore, is better for gaming.



I happened to stumble on some benchmarks today between some of the newer AMD chips and the core 2's. If their results are accurate, then I have to disagree with this statement.

The core 2 duo chips are seriously outperforming the AMD chips in things like office applications and 3d rendering, but according to these benchmarks, there is VERY little difference when it comes to games, which seems to refute what you have been saying.

Here is the link:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096655,00.asp

Yes the core 2 is still better even in the games sector, with low end graphics, the core duo's are still a fair amount ahead, but when you start getting into higher end graphics, the difference is virtually non-existant.

This seems to suggest that the AMD architecture when it comes to processing high end graphics is still right up there with Intel.


Thank you Bones for clarrifying that for me. As I mentioned many times, Intel and AMD do not design they're processors the same. Intel is good for graphics/video editing and the such, it's also faster for encoding. However, like I have stated before, AMD wins in regards to gaming, it's a known fact. AMD designed their processor chips to be that way. Sorry, but I have not given any facts, only on what I know by experience. I was too lazy to look for any factual information haha. So I thank Bones for providing that for me Smile
Animal
jay84h wrote:
Intel is good for graphics/video editing and the such, it's also faster for encoding. However, like I have stated before, AMD wins in regards to gaming, it's a known fact. AMD designed their processor chips to be that way. Sorry, but I have not given any facts, only on what I know by experience. I was too lazy to look for any factual information haha. So I thank Bones for providing that for me Smile

While you may be correct with your point about AMD being better for gaming, it's an absolutely tiny margin in the case of some processors only - if you actually read the article that Bones linked to, you would see this:
Quote:
While the new AMD processor closes the gap in a number of tests, Intel's Core 2 Duo E6700 still maintains a lead in the gaming test.


I don't debate with you that AMD make good processors, however I don't understand why you get so defensive of them. Both in the benchmarks given by Bones and Sunny, the Core2Duos out-perform the AMD processors, yet you still say "AMD are better... and if they're not, Intel will screw up and AMD will once-again rule the world"

Eh?

You clearly didn't read either Bones' post or the link he provided:
Bones wrote:
...but according to these benchmarks, there is VERY little difference when it comes to games, which seems to refute what you have been saying.

jay84h wrote:
like I have stated before, AMD wins in regards to gaming, it's a known fact. AMD designed their processor chips to be that way. Sorry, but I have not given any facts, only on what I know by experience.

In fact, Bones didn't clarify what you were saying.

Now, I don't have a problem with the fact that you are expressing your opinion that AMD are better than Intel processors generally, however when people are actually providing numbers that prove your opinion is not based on fact, you respond with comments like this:
jay84h wrote:
Question is, how long can Intel stay on top before screwing it up? Keep that in mind when AMD comes back, thanks.

...and then continue to argue that AMD are better!

Here's a quick summary from the link Bones provided:

Quote:
At under $500, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ offers decent performance, albeit at the cost of more noise and heat than Intel's current E6700 or better CPUs. Still, it's less costly than the E6700, and offers performance nearly as good in some applications. However, Intel still rules the roost in media encoding and 3D content creation.

AMD needs to move its 65nm process to higher clock speeds; the current 90nm process is noticeably running out of steam. Of course, what the company really needs to do is get out its new architecture in both quad core and dual core. Certainly AMD's pronouncements about its upcoming quad-core performance have been pretty aggressive. But until then, AMD finds itself in something of a holding pattern.

What that means for users is that people who are price-sensitive will find AMD to be a good deal for relatively decent performance. But Intel still maintains a lead in performance and lower peak-power utilization. The Athlon 64 6000+ is ultimately a good effort, but falls just a bit short.


Basically, it says that the Intel Core2Duo processors are better than AMD's current offerings. However, before you start claiming that I'm an "Intel Fanboy", I'm not. In fact, I'm not even remotely interested in Desktop processors since I use a laptop. All I ask is that when you are making an argument, please provide some information to back-up your argument and don't counter other people's arguments with dumb statements like this:
jay84h wrote:
But it's just rediculous the way your talking about the matter, if your not a computer tech, then don't talk about it from experts who know the facts.
jay84h
I have read Bones post and did take into fact that AMD did beat Intel for gaming by a tiny margin. However, you did not see me write anything about AMD blowing Intel out of the water for gaming have you? I only said that AMD has a different style processor that is great for gaming. The benchmarks that Bones posted showed the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ beating the Intel Core 2 Duo by a tiny margin. You must take into fact that it is still the same processor (Athlon 64 X2), that bet the Core 2 Duo. If that is all AMD had to do, was the increase the processor of the Athlon 64 X2, than imagine what the Barcelona Quad Core will do.
Animal
jay84h wrote:
If that is all AMD had to do, was the increase the processor of the Athlon 64 X2, than imagine what the Barcelona Quad Core will do.

You're correct - the new AMD processor should be good provided they move to newer manufacturing processes (such as 60nm) to improve their performance. However, you can't argue that AMD are better than Intel because you think the new processor will be good - you'll need to wait and see some comparative benchmarks before you make that assessment.
jay84h
Animal wrote:
jay84h wrote:
If that is all AMD had to do, was the increase the processor of the Athlon 64 X2, than imagine what the Barcelona Quad Core will do.

You're correct - the new AMD processor should be good provided they move to newer manufacturing processes (such as 60nm) to improve their performance. However, you can't argue that AMD are better than Intel because you think the new processor will be good - you'll need to wait and see some comparative benchmarks before you make that assessment.


I don't think, I am not even assuming. I am just taking into comparison the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ has a tiny margin over Intel's Core 2 Duo, that the Barcelona has a good chance of outperforming. I guess we will see for ourselves, when that processor is released.
Related topics
What is better? AMD or Intel
Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2???
Freezing Windows 98 Second Edition
Intel Core 2 Duo and Extreme
Windows XP vs Mac OS X
[INFORMÁTICA] Sobre meu processador Sempron
Which CPU to get?!
P4 3.0 Ghz vs P4-D-2.6 (Someone please reply, site needed)
"Intel apresenta microprocessador de quatro núcleos&quo
What's your rig?
Opion's and help needed! <-- Lol.
System I'm Building: Suggestions:
Video Compression
AMD vs. Intel Relative Speed Info Req'd.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Computer Problems and Support

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.