hey, I've been thinking of building a new computer for myself for a while and I figure I might as well get started on researching what's new. I've been looking around the web and any site I find that compares amd vs intel is always (understandably) just testing their new quad-core powerhouses. But I fail to find anywhere that truly compares mid-range processors that I would be interested in. If anyone has any suggestions for good reviews or anything else it'd be appreciated.
J
Jump to Postintel
I have a intel core2duo and an amd X2 - both are within the same price range and taget market of home desktop / light gaming (these two cpus are usually the options on dell desktops) and the Core2 totally annihilates the X2 in both benchmarks and real …
Jump to Postits not like in the pentium days. Speed is not evetything, its efficiency. My ~1.2ghz core2duo outperforms my 3ghz pentium 4 (not HT version).
the intel one is slower than the AMD one but i think it has more cache. The difference between a chip with 1mb and 2mb …
Jump to Postyeah.
the best way to get efficiency is to google for benchmarks - specifically those using programs called PCMark and SysMark - they give results based on simulating day to day office tasks
the core2s cache is the main winner though.
The core2 also has A LOT …
intel
I have a intel core2duo and an amd X2 - both are within the same price range and taget market of home desktop / light gaming (these two cpus are usually the options on dell desktops) and the Core2 totally annihilates the X2 in both benchmarks and real life performance
thanks for the reply. I was actually looking at a core 2 duo but since it's been so long since I last shopped for processors, I've lost touch with what's important and what's not. Here's the two processors I'm looking at (for the moment)
(Core 2 Duo E4600 Allendale)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115032
and
(Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773
just looking at it, the athlon appears significantly faster, however it employs 90nm technology as opposed to the 45nm by the core 2 duo. It also requires twice as much thermal power but has hyper transport as well as virtualization technology. I suppose the question that comes out of this is where is the best place to compromise? Thanks!
J
EDIT:
I found some benchmarks for the x2 6000 and it was consistently beaten by an core 2 duo E6700 which is (as far as I can tell) only slightly better than the E4600, I may be wrong there.
its not like in the pentium days. Speed is not evetything, its efficiency. My ~1.2ghz core2duo outperforms my 3ghz pentium 4 (not HT version).
the intel one is slower than the AMD one but i think it has more cache. The difference between a chip with 1mb and 2mb or cache is significant (think celeron vs pentium)
is there any way to calculate/estimate efficiency with just the general information given? or is it safe to assume that 45nm is more efficient than a 90nm architecture? But looking at the heat output and the voltage consumption, it looks as though the AMD has more than it's proportion of those.
yeah.
the best way to get efficiency is to google for benchmarks - specifically those using programs called PCMark and SysMark - they give results based on simulating day to day office tasks
the core2s cache is the main winner though.
The core2 also has A LOT of overclocking potential too (if you are into that sort of thing) - can go to 3ghz or 4 ghzish
yeah I see that the E4600 can overclock substantially, looks like a good choice. Well it seems that the intel has won this round, but I'll continue researching until I actually purchase, thanks for all the help.
J
no problem :)
the one thing to remember is that the heatsink and fan kit which comes with the retail version of the core2 (not the OEm one, thats just the chip, no manuals or anything) isnt that amazing - you will want to but a better one on for OCing
You can compare the Core 2 E4500 and the Athlon X2 6000+ here.
The newer E4600 will be slightly faster than the E4500, but the 6000+ should still be better than both.
however the E4600 overclocks to 3.0Ghz solely with a FSB increase (which I would probably end up doing, with enhanced cooling of course :) )so on paper, they then have the same Ghz, and then since the 4600 has 45nm architecture as opposed to the 90nm that the AMD has, it seems it's more efficient.
Here's a site I found in my research that outlines the features of the E4600, proved useful for my personal choice.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=700&p=0
(I saw reports of people getting these up to 4.0Ghz, but the average max for OC is 3.3-3.4)
yeah i OCed an core2 extreme edition (no locks) stably to about 4.2 using just air cooling, and decent quality heatsinks/fans/paste - nothing insane
Hey, i know this post is old, and that you have surely bought your new system long ago, but for future, note this: I OC'ed my Intel E4600, with a "not so special" Gigabyte Motherboard, to 3,42 GHZ. Actually, when you overclock a 2,4 GHZ processor to this much, then compare it to AMD. I will turn your attention that i have a stock cooler, and processor temperature doesn't get above 50 degrees (Celsius). So cooling is not a problem. My friends AMD, oh... That's a story. He had two blue screens in the first month, the CPU temperature was giving heat to the entire room, and it was perforim way too slow. If you tried to OC it...... :scared:
And btw, all Dual Cores below 8000 series are 65nm, not 45. :sad:
No reason to be mad at all. Just correcting the information :)
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.