Intel vs. AMD

It'll be an outstanding CPU there’s no denying.
Having a quad core is something we could only have dreamt about a while ago.
It's pointless me guessing what sort of performance they will give, it needs someone to actually do the testing and see what they can do.
But being 65nm they should hopefully be less costly in comparison to the original prices of AM2 CPU’s, and cooler.
I only have a few applications that are dual core capable, but having the load spread is very useful for system performance.
Having that load spread even further will be even better.
I'd like to see apps that can use all or some of the cores depending on user settings, so I could use 3 for a main app and still keep 1 for general use, as an example video encoding.

As for how fast these CPU's can go; it only seems like yesterday that 1G was reached and they said that was as high it CPU could possibly go.
If users are getting 4.0 off the shelf then we should be able to push then to 5+ quite easily (hopefully) then having a PC with equivalent of 10 or 20GHz processing power with 12mb cache will be the stuff of dreams.

 

Not everyone's looking for a top performance board, BigDK, and when you consider the performance is very similar at the I'm-not-mega-rich end of the spectrum, and so are the prices, it's up to the buyer. Not everyone's as well off as you being able to buy the top performance everything. At the E6600 onwards, Intel beats AMD hands down, there's no argument. But the 4600+ is considerably (£70 where I looked) cheaper than the 6600, so it's not fair to compare them on the grounds of clock speed.
Baltekmi, when overclocked fully, the intel wins, we know this, but my point was most people don't OC the hell out of their systems, or they'd be of the sort that they would do their own research, not let an Intel fanboy decide intel for them. They may very well go with the Core 2 Duo, but since your advice is based upon your loyalty for a company, factual accuracies to support your statement are kind of superfluous.
You could spend £180 on a 3800+ with an A8N board, or £370 on an E6600 with a DS3, is it any surprise the Core 2 Duo is faster? Even a 6300 with a board capable of overclocking well (which we know the cheap ones don't) will srt you back at least £230. For the average user, AMD has the cheapest competent Dual core solution. I don't count Pentium Ds a competent dual core solution, since the only ones that are cheaper than using a 3800+ need major overclocks to get to the level of the AMD's performance.

Quad cores will see interesting developments from AMD I would think due to 4x4, I'd love to see how effective it is.

 

I headed to THG for some "real info" and found they haven't benchmarked the E6300...

 

@Sammorris
Can you enlighten me to the exact point of this forum 'Intel Vs AMD' if it’s not to discuss the latest technology?

It seams a very pointless affair for anyone to discuss the comparisons of older model CPUs in this forum, as we should all by now know what they are capable of, if not use Google.

You shouldn’t try to stop people talking about the kit you don't personally own just because you don' have it, and you assume that everyone who enters this discussion is purely trying to do things on a tight budget.

There is a forum dedicated to building a budget conscious PC on AD, so maybe you should direct your comments that way.

If we don't talk about the current products, merely sit here and try and convince each other we have the best kit because that’s we own, then it becomes a very pointless exercise.

£70 in the grand scheme of things on a new build system is not a large amount of money.
If we use a comparison of value £ for £ then it still seems that Intel wipe the floor with AMD.

I could still build an Intel system that would wipe the floor with any similar priced AMD system no matter what board I used, (if using the latest technology from both Intel and AMD).

I hesitate to say anything back to your comments, as you always seem to take everything personally for some reason, and start displaying a confrontational trait in your personality

But yet again you seem to have aggressively jumped onto a comment I have made without any real cause.

Maybe you should avoid using this particular thread, as it seems to take you over the edge, before it resulted in not only you getting a suspension, but the thread getting shut down.

For some reason you seem determined to always convince everyone that a combination of the AMD X2 4200+ CPU and X1900XT card are all that’s needed in current PC building and anything else is a waste of time and money.

There are plenty of people out there that would think that your system is a total over-kill and too much money, but you wouldn’t expect to never mention that level of kit because they couldn’t afford it.

How you can honestly turn this thread into a lesson in frugal management is beyond me, so rather than intimating your personal financial limitations, can we do what the forum requires, and talk about the current CPU's from Intel and AMD

 

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ £111.61 Retail OC UK
Intel Core 2 DUO E6300 1.86GHz Retail £117.49 OC UK

So prices of the CPUs are actually pretty similar.
If we go for an AM2 that competes with the 6300 at stock then we are looking at the 4200 at £131.59 or the 4600 at £193.86.
At best for the AMD it gives an extra £25 spare for the motherboard costs, or a full £76 if compared with the 4600 which the 6300 does do.

If you then take into account the possible savings on the memory that is required due to the Intel’s cache handling efficiency, then the difference becomes more an more in favour of the Intel over the AMD.


Quoted from here:
http://www.custompc.co.uk/custompc/reviews/96672/intel-core-2-duo-e6300.html

E6300 test system was almost 10 per cent faster than our X2 3800+ system at stock speeds. The Core architecture is particularly suited to DVD encoding, with the Intel PC completing this test almost a minute ahead of the AMD system. In the Paint Shop Pro image editing test, the Core 2 system was faster too, although both systems achieved the same speed in the multitasking benchmark.

While it's slightly more expensive than the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, the E6300 more than makes up for this with its superior performance both at stock speeds and when overclocked.

As we found in this month's RAM Labs test, the efficiency of Core 2 Duo's shared Level 2 cache means that you can get by with cheaper, high-latency RAM, negating the financial advantage of buying a slightly cheaper AMD CPU. Opting for an LGA775 system over a Socket AM2 setup means that you'll also have an upgrade path to the imperious X6800 Extreme Edition, rather than being limited by an overpriced and underperforming Athlon 64 FX-62. Whether you're building a dream PC, or a budget-friendly, ninja overclocking rig, Core 2 Duo is the way to go.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=12

The Core 2 Duo E6300 is a better performer than the X2 3800+ but is also more expensive, thankfully for the E6300's sake it is also faster than the 4200+ and the 4600+ in some benchmarks. Overall the E6300 is a better buy, but at stock speeds the advantage isn't nearly as great as the faster Core 2 parts. In many benchmarks the X2 4200+ isn't that far off the E6300's performance, sometimes even outperforming it at virtually the same price. Overclocking changes everything though, as our 2.592GHz E6300 ended up faster than AMD's FX-62 in almost every single benchmark

 

where to begin?

the thing with amd is they have taken their eye off the ball, they were too intrested in buying ati(smart move i dont doubt, but anyway) and it has let intel leapfrog them. now from what i have read into it they have already given up on am2/ddr2 and are looking to gain the advantage with am3 and ddr3(k8l).

now by the time amd get the 4x4(65nm) out intel will already have their replacement for the kentsfields ready, the yorkfield, and that will be on a 45nm waffer, so the power reqs will be inline with a conroe. this will leave them(amd) still playing catch up.

has anyone read/heard that amd are going to use quantom well processors as a(not so) secerte weapon to up the clock speeds to overtake intel with k8l?

f.y.i not a fanboy, but intel do rule the roost at the min, im going to sob quietly now with my little sempy

 

Intel Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) 45nm

 

lol. thanks thats the one.

 

no problem!

 

Firstly, I will quote Brobear on his recent purchase:

I typically count Brobear as a pretty intelligent guy who knows what he's doing. He's bought a 4800+ system for HALF the upgrade cost of using the 6600.

If all that's new is Core 2 Duos, then it's not Intel vs AMD is it? X2s are still what's new from AMD at the moment, so this is pure speculation on that part I'm afraid. X2s versus Core 2 Duos is on topic.
I'm not stopping anyone from buying a Core 2 Duo, if you look at my post carefully, I say that they're both AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER and that you could happily buy either, I personally recommended the AMD but left the choice open. i'm not

here to force people down one track like you are.
When you compare to rival products, you often compare price, whether it's Semprons vs Celerons or FX series versus Extreme editions, how price is irrelevant is beyond me. believe it or not if I was mad I could buy a Core 2 Extreme

edition system with Quad SLI from my bank balance, but I won't because I already have a powerful system, capable of matching at least an E6300 quite nicely.

Well, I can't talk about the kit I own it

seems, because something that is still amongst the best that AMD has to offer isn't a current product apparently, despite the fact that it doesn't have a successor yet.

Of course you could, just go above

the E6600, and it's done. AMD can't compete in that field, but it's NOT THE ONLY FIELD. Few people can spend such on a PC to get an E6600 when an E6300 or X2 will do!

This is going to be my last post on this particular matter. Since offering my advice is taking everything personally, I'm only digging myself into another hole with you.

Under £240 for a processor, AMD and Intel are pretty much even (X2 vs Core 2 Duo), so buy either. But for god's sake, if they perform THE SAME, then buy the cheaper one!

 

you could go tit for tat like this forever and ultimatly get nowhere.

the thing is with this kind of thing its all just "i.m.o", regardless if you state it or not. you all know the thing about opinions and aholes, dont we?

if you going to talk about value for money the x2s cant touch the pentium ds(805/820/915) all under £100(£65 for the 805), ok they run hot and will eat the juice like a kettle or a toaster, but they will all run at 3ghz easy, all multitask well and they run any multi core optimised app better than any other cpu for the price.

but hey thats just my opinion

 

And I'm the one being beaten up for mentioning old tech! Those things are, at least at stock, pretty sluggish though.

 

Take it easy guys!!!!!!!!!

 

Hey I've stated my opinion, people can follow it if they like, I'm bored of discussions like this.

 

Sammorris

No you are the one that keeps mentioning old tech, and intell e-6600.

You keep avoiding the fact that the e-6300 oc'd will keep up with mostly all benches against all amd chips You keep ignoring the post and point out your kit which stands up aginst nothing. Who cares what headphones you use??lol

You keep blasting our post with no real support. I am not nor is big dk implying That older most recent tech for both intel and amd is not good. grow up a bit and help this thread not argue non facts.

 

The fact that An overclocked Core 2 Duo bests an X2 stock doesn't surprise me. Really they're not that far aprt when overclocked, what you're not mentioning is that you need an expensive board and good RAM to get good marks from the Core 2s. AMDs will settle for cheap boards and RAM and still overclock well. This isn't me "being cheap" again, but comparing systems where one cost twice as much as the other, even if the CPUs were the same amount doesn't add up. When you can overclock an X2 to 2.8Ghz and the E6300 can only make 2.2 on the same cost board and memory, AMD's are looking up. And in addition that, what if you didn't want to overclock?

 

I'll make a presumption that most people that use this and other like forums, are doing so to take their computing to a level higher than that obtained by the majority of users who are happy to take a pre-built machine and merely switch it on and play.

One main factor in the costing factors associated with the AMD boards, is the fact that the technology has been out slightly longer and as such the board prices have dropped from that level initially paid at the launch.
You will still pay anything from £70 at the lower end of worthwhile to £105 - £185 for a good AM2 board

You can get a good Core 2 board from £103 at Dabs for example Gigabyte GA_965P_DS3, this is shown to easily go to 385 on the fsb, taking a 6600 to 3.4GHz and the 6300 to 2.7GHz.
Now that’s £220 for a board and cpu, that will perform extremely well as is, or will overclock by 50% quite easily, compared to about £200 for the x2 3800 cpu and a good board.

As for memory, that is very much board, chipset and bios dependant, as memory that will work on one board my well struggle on another board.

It has been seen on both amd and Intel supporting boards, that some manufacturers have problems with some ram.

As seen in the link I posted before, it has actually been shown that on performance, it was the Intel’s that faired better with lower latency memory compared to the amd's.
http://www.custompc.co.uk/custompc/revie...-duo-e6300.html

As with any system, it is most often the ram that determines how well a system can be pushed, and all too often it is the ram that people decide to try and save money on.
If you plan to use high fsb on any system to push up the cpu frequency, you need good memory to do it, so really anyone trying to build a system now should be looking at ddr800 memory, or memory that is capable of being pushed to ddr800.
Otherwise overclocking will fail, then that will probably be blamed on the board by a lot of inexperienced tweakers, but is board independent.

Some boards are just crap for tweaking, but hopefully I wouldn’t expect any of the forum users here to direct people to buy those boards, unless they were dealing with a specific request for a budget system with no future proofing built into it.

I suppose a reason most people keep referring to the top end boards of £130+ is because no matter what system you are trying to build, it has to revolve around the board, so the better board you get the better your options are to play and push.
Again we need to remember that the core 2 support is quite new, so the newer boards that support it will have a premium price, but that will change when newer products come out.
I paid £150 for an A8N32-SLI board less than a year ago, and now its available for £103 inc VAT at Misco.

Plenty of people post on AD that they are unable to do what they want with their boards as the options are so limited.
This is normally due to them trying to save a few quid at the time of purchase, and paying for it later.
People will gladly pay out for a nice lcd monitor and fancy speaker etc... at the expense of the main system components, because they want a bit of everything and are unwilling to wait.

I would always direct people to buy the best board they can, get the best memory they can, even if that means getting 1gb instead of 2gb, and then getting the cpu they can afford to go with it.

If people want cheap in a box solutions then they can go online to Del, or down to PC world and buy a plug in and play solution.
If they want a custom PC that is at least someway future proof, and is better than the normal pre-fab boxes, then they need to be a bit more savvy on how and what they spend their money on.

Considering the performance gains for like to like CPUs the Intel’s are a better bet.
Personally I want performance, and so does everyone I know and have built systems for.
A year ago I was building amd 939 systems for people; the last 4 systems I’ve built have all been Intel.
That not because everyone I deal with is rich, it’s because they have enough sense to put their money where it counts and get a system that performs as good as possible for their budget.

Lastly, overclocking is something that should be considered by any serious PC builder/buyer, because it possible to do so, without any negative impact on the system, and buy utilising equipments ability to overclock, we can take our budget and compete with equipment that is far higher in cost.
It seems everyone at some point ends up at the stage of trying to overclock their kit, even those people that bought the Dells, Gateways and other pre-fab bundles, so ignoring overclocking as a serious consideration when making the initial purchase is just burying ones head in the sand

 

Making your own PC is one thing, taking the hardware above its normal spec is quite another. Seriously, I like to think of myself as a high end user, but yet don't really care for overclocking all that much.
With regard to board cowst, what about socket 939? The A8N-SLI SE is a mere £58.

 

Point 1, I knew that the first response to anything I wrote would come from you, and I could have guessed what the content would be.
You never will accept anyone making a statement here, without you finding an point to argue about.

Point 2, using the kit you are, you are not a higher end user at all; it is old technology which is now being phased out.
There’s no denying that it is good reliable equipment, but in no way is it high end at all.
If you look at the PCMark 05 top 20 hall of fame the only users with AMD systems, are there with scores that are manipulated by the use of ram drives, if they are taken out of the equation, then the system would be no where near the list.

Point 3, not wanting to overclock is your preference, maybe it is true indication of your skills to do it effectively and safely, that’s not a bad thing, its just a fact of life that not all people are up to the task.
One thing that puzzles me though, is you make a statement saying that you don’t really care for overclocking that much, but I see 5 posts of the last page on the OC’ing forum have been posted by you.
It’s strange you have such input to make on a subject you have no real interest in and don’t practice.

Point 4, you state that you think of yourself as a high end user, that alone does not make you a high end user, I'm not trying to goad you in any way, but using your own opinion as a guide to how good your system is, is hardly scientific.

In my honest opinion with the exception of your GPU, your system is not top end equipment, you’ve shown no capability in system performance enhancement through overclocking or tweaking, and you even declared that the system was not built by yourself, it was pre-made for you.
So how in anyone’s opinion other than your own, that makes you a high end PC user is beyond me.

The only reason I make any of these points, is because I’m sick and tired of you always butting in to every thread on AD with what normally amounts to personal opinion and antagonistic remarks.
Other people may get taken in with what you write, but I find it tiresome and irritating, and it makes having any sort of unbiased technical debate very hard with you trying to persuade everyone to agree with you.

I expect that someone will read this post and decide that I’m due for a ban because it’s considered offensive to talk to another member that way.
If that happens then so be it, but I don’t see why I or others should be forced into seeking your agreement on everything that’s said here, or risk suffering another of your witty ripostes.

I also expect that you consider my opinion is invalid as that is more than plain in all your responses to my posts, but before you make a return post about how I am not qualified make such a statement check this out.
http://futuremark.com/community/halloffame/pcmark05/
My PC is listed in the PCMark hall of fame top 20 list at 17, and considering several users above me are using over inflated scores due to ram drives, I consider that more than enough proof of me knowing what I'm talking about.