AMD vs Intel

Remove all ads!

I know I am opening a can of worms here, but I am currently comparing computers as I am planning on getting one with my tax refund. What I am wondering is how AMD Athlon 64 X2 stacks up against the Intel Core 2 Duo?

I specked out 2 PCs at Dell, one was AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600 and the other was Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13GHz, 1068 FSB), the rest of the PC was the same. The AMD was $689 and the Intel was $749. Is the Intel worth the extra $60 performance wise? Or is more just a matter personal taste?

I hate to spend more money than I need to, even if it is only $60.

Stupid question here...I know Dual Core processors are faster, but they only say they are in the 2 GHz range. Do you double that number because they are dual core, or are they just faster in some other way. I have done some looking online, but no one comes out and answers that question.

[ December 01, 2006, 10:41: Message edited by: Brallrock ]

 

I suggest you read some of the primers over at tomshardware.com as they were extremely helpful in understanding these technologies.

Alternatively, I've been given some tips about the Core 2 Duo in another thread created by me in this forum a while ago so you could just follow the links provided by the others on here.

As for your question, I would say that if you are using CPU intensive applications to the degree where the performance difference is noticable, then you are getting your money's worth in getting the C2D...but if you are only buying it for mundane tasks which don't need too much CPU horsepower, you could save the money.

Then again, if you can afford it, why not?

 

Yeah, even the Core 2 Extreme X6800 core runs at 2.93GHz. Basically the frequency isn't the be all and end all of a core. Other factors (such as cache size and frontside bus speed) have a huge impact (this can be seen with AMD cores, a 3000+ for example can process you're average application perhaps even faster than a 3GHz Intel Prescott, despite having a much lower clock-speed (iirc around 2Gz, give or take a couple of hundred MHz)).
The big thing about the Core 2 Duo's is the new architecture that Intel is using. Their older processors used the Netburst architecture which pretty much relied on high clock speeds to be fast. High clock speeds are not necessarily a good thing, as a lot more power needs to be used, more heat is given off, and they need louder cooling solutions. So this time round Intel opted to make the layout of the chip more efficient and increase the cache size rather than increase the frequency.

To kind of conclude: higher frequencies do not really indicate how well a chip will perform against other chips of different architectures. Benchmarks are the way to go, and have been for a while with graphics cards. With the funky naming scheme that Intel is using now it looks to be this way for processors too.

and BTW, just to further illustrate my point, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600 runs at a clock speed of 2.4GHz, however AMD is nice enough to give a rough indication of how it's products compare to it's main competitor

As for you're main question, I think that you would have to look at benchmarks based on PC’s with similar specs to the one you are considering (it may be that you’re rig will be limited by, say your graphics card and the difference between the two CPU’s will be nil). Could you perhaps tell us what other components you are considering.

[ December 01, 2006, 14:16: Message edited by: Stu ]

 

It would have 1 gig DDR2 533 MHz RAM, and a 256 MB ATI X1300 Pro video card, 160 Gig 7200 Rpm HD. For $50 less I could get an 256MB NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE TurboCache video card and I have not been able to find a site that compares the 2 cards.

I think I see why they weren't answering my question, it wasn't a very good one. I am going to look up some benchmarks and see if I get my answer.

 

LE on the nVidia cards means "Lite Edition," which means a much weaker version of that series (in this case, the 7300) which isn't that strong to begin with. I don't know if you're getting this all in a package deal or what, but I just picked up a 7900GS for about $170. I think the price dropped even further after black friday. VERY happy with this card, and a very nice upgrade from my 5900XT.

 

I would suggest that given the graphics cards that you are considering, there would be little difference between the 4600 and the E6400 cores for gaming performance and the limiting factor would instead be the graphics card. IMHO it would be better to go for the X2 and spend the extra $60 on a better graphics card. As Death Rabbit suggested just about any version of the nVidia 7900 core is a good option. TurboCache means that the card uses you're ram for graphics purposes. They usually only have a small amount of onboard memory and make up the rest of the advertised memory (256Mb for the aforementioned 7300LE) by using using you're RAM. This reduces the cost of the card, but comes at the expense of you're RAM (as you will effectivly be left with 800Mb or so rather than 1024). This may reduce performance for some games (usually the later stages of real time stratergy games).

I would rate the X1300 Pro chipset above the 7300LE in terms of priceower, but it also depends on how the manufacturer chose t implement it as well as what price you can get them for.

 

Well maybe I will just get it without a video card and add my own. The options for the PC I am looking at has only those 2 video cards listed.

Another thought I have had is to get a barebones kit and put a system together myself. I am strong on the assembly area of building a PC, but have never put a whole system together. Assuming that you get it together right, is it just a matter of assemling and then starting it up? I do have a friend that has built systems before and could help me out.

 

I always build my own systems. I'd go for that in a heartbeat. You can usually get components cheaper when you piecemeal them anyway.

 

Building it yourself would save a bundle and Dells support service probably isn't going to be able to match that of you're friend. Plus you get the bragging rights of having built you're beast as well as better components and better extras (often you will get a game bundled with a graphics card - these aren't usually that great, but a nice inclusion).
The hardest parts to get right are probably the jumper switches on the mobo- not too difficult, but can be frustrating if you get them wrong - just refer to the manual if in doubt.

 

Jumpers? What are those?

Seriously though, these days, there is only one set of jumpers on a mobo...the CMOS reset.

Hell...I was researching a mobo for a friend, and the mobo in question had 2 RJ45 ports, 6 USB, and 1 eSATA port on the back IO panel. 7.1 audio + 2 SPDIF ports were provided on a daughter card...but that's it. No parallel port, no serial port, not even the standard PS2 mouse and keyboard connectors. With USB taking over everything, it makes me wonder if there will be a USB 3.0 soon.

 

There were a few jumpers that needed to be set for my mobo to get the daughter cards to work (mine shipped with two) and I ended up getting a friend to do this (I had absolutely no idea how to do this at the time). I also have generally bad luck with other jumpers (ie. HDD and DVD drives - I shift these around a bit, which probably doesn't help).

USB - yeah they are used a bit, of my 10 ports I have four used up permanently and 2 usually in use. Most products don't actually run at the theoretical maximum of 480Mb/s, so perhaps getting things closer to this would be a good start. But yeah - transferring 10Gb of steam files onto from an ipod takes it's sweet time.

 

I have been shopping and I think I may have found a good deal:

CASE: X-Discovery Mid-Tower with 420 watt power supply with window and LCD temp display
CPU: (socket AM2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200
MOBO: (Socket AM2) Gigabyte GA-M55SLI-S4 nForce4 SLI Chipset DDR@/800 SATA 16x PCI express with GbLAN, IEEE1394, USB 2.0 and 7.1Audio
MEMORY: 1 gig PC6400 DDR 2
VIDEO: 2x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE 256MB
HD: 160GB SATA-II 7200 RPM
OPTICAL DRIVE: 16x DVDR/RW + CD R?RW

All for $775. So what do you think?

 

I think you need a Core 2 Duo!

 

Frankly, for the price you'll be paying for two of these, er, economic, cards you could probably buy a capable 7900gt. I know its tempting to SLI two weaker cards, but the gain just isn't there. I remember a while back when there was a trend at SLI two 7600's and the performance was still < a 7900.

 

That sounds fine to me. I hate to admit it, but performance-wise, Intel has the advantage... but price/performance ratio, AMD is your answer. And for the videocards... I echo what's been said - you're better off with one good card than two cheaper ones in SLI. The X2 4200+ has power aplenty - it's exactly the processor I have, but in socket 939.

 

Yeah definitely go for a 7900 over two 7300 - it will be faster (cheaper if you're lucky), and down the track you can always buy another to up you're performance (and by the time you need it you'll be able to pick one up for a song). The only thing you will really be missing out on is the bragging rights of having a SLI rig.

Typically Core 2 Duo Mobo's don't go to well with the whole SLI thing, so at the moment it's probably better to pair an ATI gpu with an intel cpu (which seems a tad odd considering AMD bought out ATI not-too-long ago). From looking at Aussie retail prices and converting them to USD's it looks like a damn good deal.

 

I really don't care about bragging rights, I just want a system that performs very well, and has good upgradeability. I am off in pursuit of WTF all those stupid letters after the nVidia model numbers means. Wish me luck.


CASE: X-Blade 3 Gaming Med-Tower 450 Watt w/ Window (SILVER Color)
CPU: (Socket AM2) AMD Athlon™64 X2 4600+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology
MOTHERBOARD: (Socket AM2)GigaByte GA-M55SLI-S4 nForce4 SLI Chipset DDR2/800 SATA 16x PCI-Express MBoard w/GbLAN, IEEE1394, USB2.0, &7.1Audio
MEMORY: (Req.DDR2 MainBoard)1GB (2x512MB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory (Corsair Value Select or Major Brand)
VIDEO CARD: SPECIAL!!! NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT 256MB 16X PCI Express Video Card
VIDEO CARD 2: NONE
LCD Monitor: NONE
HARD DRIVE: Single Hard Drive (160GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8MB Cache 7200RPM HDD)
Data Hard Drive: NONE
Optical Drive: (Special Price) 16X DVD±R/±RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER (BLACK COLOR)
Optical Drive 2: SONY 52X CD-ROM (BLACK COLOR)
SOUND: HIGH DEFINITION ON-BOARD 7.1 AUDIO
$864.00

After much research on video cards (Thanks for steering me to Tom's Hardware) I configured this PC. Did I do better this time?

[ December 05, 2006, 17:38: Message edited by: Brallrock ]

 

Yep, this oughta be a good machine.

The X2 4200+ is exactly my processor, and it runs smooth, quiet and cool. With a genuine AMD fan and some silver thermal paste, temperature never goes beyond 45 degrees (it reached 50 once, but that was during some hardcore gaming).

Gigabyte are excellent mobos as well, it's what I have too.

HD-wise, it's a matter of preference. Both WD and Seagate are great drives, but I prefer WD.

A pretty interesting deal.

 

That sounds almost identical to my new PC, with the exception of the CPU and associated Motherboard.