What is Digg?55 Comments
- triska, on 10/12/2007, -9/+56I don't understand all the intel fanboyism going on lately. That review was SO biased against AMD. Not only is the AMD top chip half the price of the Intel one (about 400 compared to 825) but they DIDN'T EVEN REVIEW THE TOP CHIP they picked the 2nd to the top, while comparing it to intel's fastest. Stating they couldn't get hold of one just doesn't cut it and makes the whole review not worth it.
So the AMD runs cooler, it's half the price, and IF they'd bothered to review their top chip they would have seen it outpaces the intel for a cooler cheaper machine.
I guess this is what happens when you get the media in a frenzy of marketing and everyone wants the intel chip to come out on top, when clearly it doesn't.
Just say no to fanboyism. - Blitzenn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Ouch, but the article is incorrect. He drew the wrong conclusions from his own data. The second page lists out the price of each CPU. The Performance per Dollar is key. Look at the prices on the second page; http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014647,00.asp
Now observe that the AMD 4200+ is nearly the same price as the low end Intel E6300. Ok so we have $190 processor from each manufacturer. Now go compare the data points for those two processors across the data he collected (look for yourself so I can't hedge the numbers on you). The AMD 4200+ comes out ahead each time. So the reality is that if you have $1200 to spend on a machine, you are going to have a faster machine in the end if you spend your dollars on AMD than Intel. Isn't that what it's all about? - triska, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20xcheats: you might like to think that if you're an intel fanboy, but facts are facts.
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17damn. i love AMD but intel has soundly taken the performance crown. unfortunately it looks to be about 3 quarters before AMD has a real answer.
- TNHitokiri, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@ triska
i admit most of your statements are true, and the article seems to be intel fanboyism, but i guarantee that the top core 2 duo will beat the top AM2
although it may run cooler and use less voltage, its still slower than the fastest core 2 duo.
those are the facts - returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"i admit most of your statements are true, and the article seems to be intel fanboyism, but i guarantee that the top core 2 duo will beat the top AM2"
Most consumers don't buy the highest-end system available on the market. The performance-to-cost ratio is what matters most. - Blitzenn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Ouch, but the article is incorrect. He drew the wrong conclusions from his own data. The second page lists out the price of each CPU. The Performance per Dollar is key. Look at the prices on the second page; http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014647,00.asp
Now observe that the AMD 4200+ is nearly the same price as the low end Intel E6300. Ok so we have $190 processor from each manufacturer. Now go compare the data points for those two processors across the data he collected (look for yourself so I can't hedge the numbers on you). The AMD 4200+ comes out ahead each time. So the reality is that if you have $1200 to spend on a machine, you are going to have a faster machine in the end if you spend your dollars on AMD than Intel. Isn't that what it's all about? - sfly510, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ byron
AM2 is not a dual core processor line, it's a socket type. The chips can be either single or dual-core.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_AM2 - ePlus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Print preview: http://www.extremetech.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=188341,00.asp
Easier to read. - coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I could be wrong, But it looks like their comparing dual core Intel chips to single core AMD chips. In which case it's obvious the dual core CPUs will outperform their single core counterparts, And makes for a very slanted comparison. Again I could be wrong.
- opusagogo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9article summary: Intel outpaces AMD
- xcheats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My school has the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800s in all of their engineering computers. High School that is. That along with nVidia 512 MB Quadros and 21" monitors, it really speeds up CAD. As much as you might think its not needed. You'd be suprised how long it takes a good 3D render. Especially on the old PCs.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4At least in the meantime they've taken prices down to a point where they're still competitive, and they won't have to worry about there BEING a 3rd quarter from now.
- maranatha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you run any kind of high end apps dual core helps out a lot. The abbility to off load all the backend OS crap on to one core and dedicate the other to one app makes a huge difference (especialy when running hogs like norton). It also does wonders for multi tasking.
- davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Whatever you're a fan of, you sometimes have to choose loyalty over value/performance or vice versa. I'll admit to being an AMD fanboy (i haven't heard of that term prior to this thread) but I just put together an e6300 based system this week because I got so much more bang for the buck than I could have with AMD (and when I clock it to 3000MHz i just feel bad for AMD right now). While I'm at it, I'm also a fanboy of nVidia and Asus, though now I'm running a couple x1300's and almost got a Gigabyte board. My most recent laptop purchase was a Turion x2 which, though not as good (speed and battery) as Intel's, I stuck with AMD (saved a few bucks too) since high performance on a notebook wasn't my biggest priority.
My summary: AMD still offers the best products for low cost and excellent performance. Intel currently offers top speed and excellent value, and, if i might add, better overclockability for added value. - goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ive already seen a benchmark about this and Intel won on the last one too. All these tests are not very accurate and AMD is cheaper. I'll be honest with you, my 2.2 ghz amd athlon 3500 works better then my Pentium 4 2.4ghz, Pentium 4 Prescott core 2.8 with HT, and my Pentium 4 Prescott core 3.4 ghz with HT. And another strange thing... At my school (EVIT), We have these new dell computers with 1 gig of ddr2, Pentium D 2.8-3.2ghz etc etc, anyway, my computer that's almost the same thing except the fact I don't have SATA(I have sata, just not a harddrive that uses SATA), ddr2, or 2.8 dual core works the same as my computer running the same 3D Studio Max software. I love Intel and used them for years, I also really like AMD, but when you buy into Intel, your paying for the name. I'm going to get an AMD X2 pretty soon and I'm confident that I'll be pleased.
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3:-o
WTF is your school? Valhalla High School? Heaven University?
We have still P4 and ancient VGA's... :( - ibis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly, when it's time for an upgrade I just go out and buy the fastest sub-$300 (Australian) CPU that is being made. Sometimes that's Intel, sometimes that's AMD. (My current CPU is an Athlon64, the previous one was a P4). Since I now leave my PC running 24/7 I also consider idle power consumption.
Actually _all_ CPUs are getting so crazy fast that I'd probably just buy the cheapest dual core socket 939 chip I can find, and reuse my current motherboard and put the money savings into a video card upgrade. - BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Blitzenn, Gigabyte DS3 + E6300 = massive overclocking (better than the X2 4200+).
So if you want the fastest machine (if you don't mind doing a little overclocking), Core 2 Duo would be the way to go.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1075792
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1098205 - davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3damn. my fairly high level california university engineering lab is still on crappy old P-III's with CRT monitors...that's all we get for 3-D solid modeling and mathematical system simulations...needless to say I try to work as much as possible on my own computer ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4actually if I look at his own statistics in most of his tests the low end core 2 duo out performed the second and third from the bottom AMD. If you read his conclusions though he says for the price and you don't want super performance he says AMD is the best but if your willing to spend 250 bucks and buy a mid range core 2 duo it'll out perform for less than the high end AMD's. if your going to say he's wrong in the article and quote the article's statistics you should actually RTFA first.
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I refuse to plough through dozens of pages of pointless ***** to get to the money shot.
***** these kinds of articles. ***** them in the ass. - PhairOh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is the second review that I've read that claims such huge advantages in favor of the Intel chips. As a fan of AMD since the Athlon first debuted (I remember being so excited when I built an awesome computer for my father with a 700MHz Athlon) I am still extremely excited for Intel. After many years of being second, they are once again in the lead.
I can't wait till I can put some money together and build myself a new system using a Core 2 Duo. I do hope that AMD comes out swinging with their next chip, it's just too bad that it is seemingly so many months away. - goffy59, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I dont know why anyone dugg you down. I guess there are some morons on here. Being around Intel fanboy bitches kinda weirds me out. I love Intel and I think they do a great job at all their products, but you pay more for the name rather then performance.
Used Intel all my life now I use both Intel and AMD and I like AMD alot now. I sitll got love for Intel I just don't like wasting money on a name. - SteveMax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Their plots gave me an idea... They should plot (benchmark score) vs cost for each processor in each benchmark (maybe connect the points of the processors from the same company). This would give a good compairson metric for all benchmarks, in all price ranges (which is what matters); and it would not look as Intel-biased as this.
- archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just bought a E6600 for $337. AMD's X2 4800+ was $299(according to newegg last week when I ordered my chip). I'm not sure how much the FX-62 goes for but the Intel Core 2 Duo chips spank the ***** out of it.
Also, according to Maximum PC magazine, they were able to run the Core 2 Duo with both cores under full load for hours with the CPU fan turned off. Just using a heatsink the processor only increased 3 degrees during this time. - TNHitokiri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2returnofthemalv, have u even looked at the benchmarks on the article? all of the core 2 duos outbench the corresponding AMD processor
not trying being an intel fanboy here again, (i own only AMD64 computers currently)
edit: coredump, you might be onto somethin... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3not exactly like these results are new, ever since the core 2 duo has been released every website and their cousins have been showing benchmark results like this.
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IMO i think right now the e6400 is about the best bang for your buck. at 230$ it hangs in there with an fx-62. Sure; like blitzenn posted (twice), amd may be better dollar for dollar @190$ but for 40$ more (on a 1200$ pc) the performance increase seems worth it to me. ASrock makes a decent board than will run ddr/ddr2 and agp/pci-e, that is dirt cheap. Sorry to rant. But whatever but what you want if i had the money i would get both amd and intel.
- gummih, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok, so this is a comparison of dual core Intels vs. SINGLE core AMDs??
- daven1986, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3should see the quad cpu, in video rendering it is just amazing.
- SanTe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Lets see some software that uses more than one core at a time please and then it will be worthwhile all of us investing in them."
DVD Shrink is multi-threaded. :) - archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well yeah, it's all about balance of course. But these new Core 2 Duos are insanely fast. It's a pretty huge step forward. Read the review here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795
He goes over the actually preformance differences between 2mb and 4mb caches as well as memory latency. - sekyuritei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone else get sick of these hardware sites and the 30 pages (cough, ad revenue) you have to go through to get to their fanboy biased review? I have to plug www.hardocp.com for being straightforward and usually dead-on.
- nirmaldotca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a quick question for you guys, i have a Pentium D Dual Core whats the different between that and Core 2 Duo?
- pillfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the prices seem consistent with the X2 pricing at newegg. SO i would guess no, i assume they figured it would be a given to compare dual v.s. dual.
- airhendrix13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't consider myself a fan-boy of either brand of CPU. I would like to make clear though that it makes plenty of sense AMD has better performance per dollar. Why? Simple. They have to compete. Of course AMD would have better performance per dollar, they have to or they will get stomped. If they don't have the better performer, than really the only way to stand ground is to out-value (doubt that was a word) rather than out-perform. When AMD has its come back and comes out with a new CPU, the core 2 duos will plummet in price too for the same reason above, likely making it the better performer per dollar but not overall. This leads me to say that saying one CPU brand is better than the other is complete nonsense. These 2 companies will continue to leap frog each other for years.
The c2d's are more powerful, get use to it, but you know what? AMID will take the crown again in the future, and so the flip flopping shall continue.
One more thing, next gen cpu's will not highly effect gaming (unless if gaming on multiple cores is fully initialized). My opinion, unless you do heavy video editing or other stuff that uses many threads of data, don't worry too much about next gen cpu's.
Feel free to flame at me or show your views (this I would much more prefer). - airhendrix13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Core 2 Duo has a new architecture that allows data to be transferred much quicker and more efficiently without having to raise the hertz level. This allows for a cooler PC with a quicker interface. Also, the C2D has more cache (which really doesn't have a huge benefit) but it may in the future.
So nirmaldotca, if you are an overclocker, then C2D is a VERY good choice, or if you have heating issues, this may help but only a little seeing its your room temperature that makes or breaks a cool PC. But the main reason this is a good buy is because data travels far less distance then Pentium D's making it faster with lower hertz.
Hope this helped - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So they compared an entire platform Vs a specific chip range?
Seems a bit, well, absolutley ***** stupid!
I just ordered a X2-3600 CPU based PC for the AM2 platform for a client of mine, according to the title of the article and this story in particular, this cheapo computer should be compared directly with the most expensive, top end Intel E6600 chip and whatever computer I put it in!
Yes, we all know that intel has the upper hand in the CPU speed wars, but to deliberatley mislead people the way this article does is just sheer rampant intel fanboyism!
But at least its not as bad as ANY of the crap on roughlydrafted.com! - DataPath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One thing I've noticed is that benchmarks of retail Core 2 Duo systems don't seem to perform as well as the samples provided to reviewers before release.
I'm not (yet) accusing Intel of anything, but so far the reviews of retail systems based on Core 2 Duo don't seem to display the same wide performance margin against AMD. Also, the power consumption margins narrowed a little, too. - ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Cheers for that opusagogo.
:) - Dabellah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2To be expected due to Intel's raw commercial strength. AMD is a very formidable competitor, but Intel has the resources and ability to really push the market if they so desire as they are doing now. I read somewhere once that Intel spends more in R&D yearly than AMD is worth altogether, but this was about a year to two years ago. Numbers might be different now. I like having two brands to pick from (I am not for one or the other as most fanboys are, I just go where the numbers are) and enjoy the price competition that comes from it. My assumption has always been that Intel will succeed faster than AMD in respects to new technologies and products just due to the forementioned reasoning. Just my two cents.
- Lynx0123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By the time Kentsfield is released, there will probably be an anouncement for the next generation of CPU either form AMD or Intel. And by the time that batch is released, there will be another anouncement, and so on and so forth.
So, you can probably just wait forever coz something better will always come out. d=
As for me, I only wait for the next batch to come out so that the price for my target CPU plummets. - Lynx0123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pentium D Dual Core is based on an old CPU architecture that has been bottlenecked by the 800MHz FSB for quite a long time now. And what Intel kept on doing since they can't come up with architectural changes yet was increase the frequency multiplier of the CPU and later add another core and cleverly market those CPUs to make the public believe that they'll get a lot of performance benefits. In theory, those changes will indeed have performance benefits, but the performance benefits would be very small and situational unless you remove the bottleneck first.
The Core 2 Duo, on the other hand, is really based on a new architecture (this new architecture is based on the architecture of their successful mobile processors) and uses a faster 1066MHz FSB. So, the C2D line really is way faster than its predecessor. And about time too.
Although, I have no idea why Intel just can't give up the FSB / Northbridge based architecture and think of a better way to ferry data to and from memory and I/O. - airhendrix13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think Dell shoots for performance for dollar so yea it kind of makes sense. I really dont like Dell, I build my own. I've learned that even with there selection with good prices that when you build, no reseller has a good value. I think if Dell knew of the hype the C2D was going to get they would of stuck with Intel, but really I dont blame them for switching, Intel was in the *****-hole (put lightly).
- babar77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't know what all the fuss about the CPU is. I would never spend more than $300 for one, because the real performance gains in a PC aren't even in the CPU anymore. These day's the major bottle neck for performance is in the busses and memory speeds. That's why I have a 800MHz FSB with 2gig of DDR2 533 memory (CAS latency of 4) in dual channel mode. Finally, I have SATA 3.0g harddrives. Mind you I bought this almost 2 years ago, but I have yet to have one problem with this PC. Plus my system with 3.2g P4 performs much better than the 3.6g P4 I have at work as my engineering workstation, in that it gets my Matlab simulations done about 10-15% faster. Which could be the difference of 10secs to 30 mins depending on what I'm doing. I also made sure that my page file in Windows is constant and at the front of the harddrives, etc. At the time, to spend the money to get to 3.6gig P4 would have been ~$800 more. I pocketed $500, spent the money on the faster harddrives and memory, and in the end got a faster, better performing computer.
Long story short: It's a waste of money buying the top end CPU if you're not going to spend the money elsewhere first. It's like upgrading a 450hp engine to 700hp engine for a car that has a trans that can only support 450hp. Therefore, I could care less about the top of the line CPUs. But I am interested in 64 bit, dual core CPUs for low power reasons in a home theater PC. - DataPath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apparently, Dell agrees with you. Isn't it strange that Dell would finally, after all these years, open a line of computers using AMD processors right when Intel seems to win back the performance and efficiency crown?
- arboc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Kentsfield (core 2 quadro) are better than core 2 duo
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
So i guess that it will be best to wait for Kentsfield, well only if you have money.
See this its even better, but for servers.
http://www.maxitmag.com/maxit-reviews/processors/intel-clovertown-quad-core-processor-review/ - Lynx0123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0babar77, 1 phrase for you: "integrated memory controller". Because of this, AMD CPUs are not bottlenecked by memory bandwidth limitations of using an FSB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Connect_Architecture
Simply put, in AMD systems, busses are not the bottlenecks anymore, but rather the limited number of transistors they can place on die (90nm process). I mean, unlike Intel, they can't just put an additional 1MB L2 cache without making the cost of production skyrocket. Anyway, this is why they delayed until this year to shift to DDR2. Their systems still didn't need the superior bandwidth of DDR2 memories. And they can't sacrifice the better latencies of DDR for an extra bandwidth that they're not gonna use anyway. And even now, the shift to DDR2, in my opinion, is more of a move for better power management rather than faster memory transfers. Last I checked, a DDR2-667 AM2 system is only a little bit faster than a DDR-400 socket 939 system. Although, DDR2-800 may be a good reason to go for the AM2 X2's if you have some extra dough.
And Intel's answer to this in their Core 2 Duo is to increase FSB to 1066MHz, increase their L2 cache, provide a better instruction set and basically almost overhaul their CPU designs to pattern it to their mobile processors (and hence the lower power consumption and quieter CPUs they have now). All these to just outpace the ingenuity of the direct connect architecture of AMD. Anyway, it'll still be quite a while before AMD can give an answer to the Core 2 Duo. Basically, they have to either come up with another ingenous architecture change or complete their migration to 65nm process.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you in not getting the top of the line CPUs - very small added value for a very steep cost change. Unless of course you have so much money to splurge anyway that you can also buy a matching high end motherboard, 2x1GB DDR2-800 memory running in dual channel, SATA HDD and multiple PCIe graphics cards. Although geez, what do you intend to do with this system? Play Quake3 while running both an antivirus and a mathematical simulation at the background? - Lynx0123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, AMD had the lead for 3 years in terms of both performace and price! It's only now that Intel overtook them in the performance arena. Intel might actually be able to keep this lead for quite a while since AMD is still shifting to the 65nm process while Intel is already there. But with the plan to acquire ATI, I'm betting it won't take them 3 years to overtake Intel.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is