Intel vs. AMD

Getting back to the subject of security,
Have a look here guys:
http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/

The only firewall that doesn't leak

Unfortunately, most firewalls leak. But Comodo's Firewall is unique in that it passes all known leak tests to ensure the integrity of data entering and exiting your system. Comodo has put firewall through all kinds of sophisticated tests to ensure its firewall powerful enough to ward off these attacks with default settings. No other firewall has had to work this hard. Take this test yourself.

Ive tested it at 4 different firewall sites and get a 100% stealth rating at all sites.
It's just over a 4meg download.
Hit download and you will have to type in your email address.You will be sent an activation code which you enter once the program is installed.Thats it free updates for life!!
I've been running it for 4 weeks or so and have'nt been sent any email from comodo trying to sell me anything or been flooded with email from them so It's all good!

 

crowy

will it conflit with my Trend Micro firewall?

plus i have a firewall router

so i probably don't need it right

 

aabbccdd,
Not sure if it will conflict with your firewall,
however when you install it,it recommends you allow it disable any other firewalls including micro$ofts.
Try testing your firewall at some of the test sites.Just google: "firewall test sites" and your in business.See how your current firewall rates,if it's not 100% give comodo a try.

Nearly forgot to give it the seal!!!!

 

aabbccdd
With the firewall router you probably don't need it.

 

i don't think i do ive ran several test here

http://www.grc.com/default.htm

and always come up perfect

 

Hi. I can't even begin to tell you how many hours I have spent reading and researching AMD or Intel, and now I've come across this forum and just sat here reading this entire thread.... almost three hours!
Here's my dilemma: I need to finally upgrade and buy a new computer. I've always just updated mine, but now it's pretty much in need of updates everywhere and so I just want to buy a new one. I'm looking at having www.cyberpowerpc.com do it.
I have always built and mostly used AMD and was set on getting one again. Now, the main thing I do is Photoshop. I don't do ANY gaming at all! But I want something that'll be blazing with Photoshop and also last me a few year.
I was all set on a 4200+ with DDR2/800mhz RAM (1 gig) until I saw a thread that said the Intel E6400 blew Photoshop away on some benchmarks. Up to that point I had read that the AMD was better for Photoshop with multithreading, etc. So here's my question...
Which one do you think is more suited for me... which one is faster... and what else would you recommend other than at least a GIG of RAM?
Which of those two chips would be faster for basically editing photos and running other applications without bringing my resources down and my computer to a standstill?
Thanks so much for your help!
Gina :O)

 

gina4xoxo, shoot us back a budget your willing to spend ,CPU,Video card, Ram, PS, mobo , drives etc. and we can help you out

the new Intel cores def. out benchmark the AMDs right now and are the way to go depending on your budget if your wanting to keep your new build for awhile i would probably go with the E6600 Intel core if you can swing it

 

I just read that in Q2 Intel will be upping their 6000 line to 4mb L2 cache instead of 2mb.
I'm looking at the specials on www.cyberpowerpc.com and the ones around $1,000 or lower. Again, I do NO GAMING... Now is the E6400 better than the AMD 4200+ for photoshop? I thought the Intel don't do the multithreading?

Thanks a bunch!
Gina

 

What do you think about this? Would I be better off waiting?

Read about the Intel 4000 chips running faster than the Core 2 Extreme X6800 - at only $163

 

The Intel core 2 duo E6xxx series are still the clear winners. Even the E6300 outperforms most other offerings. Another advantage is the E6xxx series have 1066 fsb which will increase as they are OC'ed. All the E6xxx series cpu's are highly over clockable as well. The only advantage I can see with the E4xxx series over the E6xxx series is price and it's not that much considering the stock E6300 will still outperform the stock E4300 for only a few dollars more. I would pay the few dollars more for the additional fsb.

They didn't give a comparison but I'm sure if the E6300 and E4300 were OC'ed to the same speed, the E6300 would still be the clear winner. My E6600 OC'ed to 3.0ghz will walk all over the stock E6800 too as well as all other stock dual core offerings of any make. I'm not even pushing it at 3.0ghz. I intend to OC it to 3.2ghz or 3.4ghz on air at a later date. My FSB at 3.0ghz is 1342. My memory is running at 838mhz and still at rated latency timings of 4-4-4-12.

Stock vs stock Intel E6xxx series are still the clear winners and give the best bang for the buck.

 

So it's just a lower FSB 6300? Doesn't make any sense as the other line covers all known price ranges.

Now if they released that as 1MB Dual Core with the 800MHz bus like a Core 2 Celeron. It would perform fairly, OC well, and cost much less. It would be a Celeron that doesn't completely blow but doesn't really challenge the big boys at stock. Intel would make a killing on it.

 

gina4xoxo
Talking regular prices and performance, the Conroes win for a new build. But shopping around, Some vendors are almost giving away former highend AMDs. TigerDirect has a barebones FX 60 system for $400. Add RAM, drives, and a graphics card and it's good to go. An FX 60 by itself will sell for more at most shops. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2848310&Sku=A455-2129 C
I'm seriously thinking of getting one to build an extra PC. It's socket 939 and uses DDR. If you've got PC3200 or better you would be okay. Use your old drives if they're not worn out. With todays prices that's the least of the purchases. 2x512MB RAM can be picked up for about $100 (give or take) depending on what you want. High performance comes at a price though. Keep it budget oriented with the fast FX 60 and you can't go wrong.

If you want to go leading edge and do a little future proofing, go with the Conroe. If all you need is a good working PC that rocks, go with the buy on the FX 60. You'd best buy quick though. As aabbccdd will tell you, buys like that sell out quick.

 

And how does the OC'ed E6700, X6800 (there is no E6800), and QX6700 stack up against the OCed E6600? For that matter how does an OCed E6300 stack up against a stock E6600? In both cases the E6600 gets dusted. The E6600 is the best bang for the buck though. I can see why Mort81 is happy with his. He's right on the overclocking performance too. With a custom you're going to get better performance than stock units that are locked.

 

Of course the faster core 2 duo cpu's OC'ed will outperform an OC'ed E6600. That's just common sense. But at a significant price increase. Prices at newegg: E6600 $316, E6700 $509, X6800 $970, and QX6700 $985. The QX6700 is a quad core and I explicity said any stock dual core offerings. It's been my experience with high end cpu's that the OC'ing flexability becomes less as they increase in stock speed. By that I mean an E6700 may not OC much more overall than an E6600 overall. On the same hand an E6600 may not OC much more overall than an E6400 overall (then again I could be wrong) but you still have the additional 2M shared cache with the E6600 over the E6400. My old P4 2.8 533 fsb would easily overclock to 3.2 completely stable but my P4 3.4 could only reach 3.6 and remain completely stable.

Again of course that is just common sense. That article was showing that an E4300 OC'ed would outperform a stock X6800. I can easily OC my E6600 to walk all over anything an OC'ed E4300 or OC'ed E6300 can do but also keeping in mind the E6600 cost significantly more than the E4300 or E6300.

What I was basically trying to point out is that even the E6300 at $188 would outperform many other more expensive offerings and the fsb is 1066. Also the additional 2M shared cache with the E6600 and up. I guess I got a little caried away bragging up my E6600. Sorry. I am very happy with my set up.

 

Mort81
You're confusing me using model numbers that don't exist. I get your drift though and no need to defend your choice of an E6600. I said I thought it was the best for the money. A lot of magazines and online sites, along with builders seem to agree.

I only mentioned OCed to stock jokingly because OCing gives most CPUs an edge and when talking Conroes any of the series is going to outperform it's counterparts. The OCing discussion is going a bit far as well. Many people are still reluctant to take chances OCing sytems. OCing gives an edge and typical benches indicate performance over a stock database. But like we've pointed out things get skewed when you start comparing OC to stock when those stock in the comparison can be OCed as well. OCing and comparing to stock works as a measure for improvement of the CPU being OCed, but the only true comparison between processors is along the same lines, OCed to OCed or stock to stock; apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

I understand your enthusiasm, you've got a sweet setup.

 

PacMan777,

Yeah, I screwed up on the model number of the X6800 (knew there was a 6800 but I'm never going to have one).

Guess I'm trying a little too hard to convince ppl getting ready for a new build that as of right now Intel core 2 duo is definately the way to go unless of course you don't have to have the best and come across a deal like that FX 60.

Thank you for the comlement on the rig. I'll take a chill pill but I'm still gonna explain the advantages of going with a core 2 duo over some other more expensive cpu's of different makes or models. I'm ultimately only trying to help everybody get the best bang for the buck.

 

Keep up the good work. For new builds the Conroes are the way to go. We agree on the benefits of the extra 2MB of shared cache and the higher stock speed gives it a jump on the smaller units. There's still plenty of overhead for OCing with the E6600. Those great buys like the barbones FX 60 don't come along too often and even then there's some parts still needed to complete the build.

Did you notice you had a QX6800 and an E4300 in your post? I'm sure you were just in a hurry and did a typo, but it makes for interesting reading.

 

The latter exists, to my knowledge.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2903

 

Hehe, typo on the 1st. Correction QX6700. Second is soon to be relesed. E4300 and E4400.

 

It exists, much as the Conroe did last May. Other than factory shows and restricted reviews, it doesn't exist for the consumer yet.