extremetech.com — From ExtremeTech: "We run our benchmark suite across the entire line of Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2 CPUs, from the budget priced products to the ultra-high end. Which CPU is right for you? How well does performance scale? Check out our massive roundup and find out."
Sep 12, 2006 View in Crawl 4
davidroolsSep 12, 2006
Whatever 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.
tnhitokiriSep 12, 2006
returnofthemalv, have u even looked at the benchmarks on the article? all of the core 2 duos outbench the corresponding AMD processornot trying being an intel fanboy here again, (i own only AMD64 computers currently) edit: coredump, you might be onto somethin...
wurzelgummageSep 12, 2006
I refuse to plough through dozens of pages of pointless bulls**t to get to the money shot.f**k these kinds of articles. f**k them in the ass.
airhendrix13Sep 13, 2006
Core 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
datapathSep 13, 2006
Apparently, 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?
airhendrix13Sep 13, 2006
I 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 s**t-hole (put lightly).
lynx0123Oct 2, 2006
Actually, 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.
lynx0123Oct 2, 2006
Pentium 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.