15 replies to this topic

[BigBang]

Hi guys, anyone here good with PC's? Im sure we must have some bods here Im in the process of replacing my PC. I thought i'd wait until Vista is released before i take the plunge, and now the time has come. My problem - which processor? - I have a choice of two, these are

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86Ghz 1066Mhz FSB, 2mb cache OR

AMD Athlon 64 x2 dual core 4200+

Im not a processor snob, so im happy to go with the AMD if it performs better. Ive read up about these 2 processors, but im none the wiser. Which is best/fastest? any advise is welcome. Thanks

[Wyvern]

Hi guys, anyone here good with PC's? Im sure we must have some bods here Im in the process of replacing my PC. I thought i'd wait until Vista is released before i take the plunge, and now the time has come. My problem - which processor? - I have a choice of two, these are

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86Ghz 1066Mhz FSB, 2mb cache OR

AMD Athlon 64 x2 dual core 4200+

Im not a processor snob, so im happy to go with the AMD if it performs better. Ive read up about these 2 processors, but im none the wiser. Which is best/fastest? any advise is welcome. Thanks

Go for the intel, they are a lot better than Amd at the moment

[BrightStar]

When in doubt, I head for Tom's Hardware. Take a look at their interactive CPU charts here as a starting point:

http://www.tomshardw...cpu/charts.html

[ProfHawking]

I kinda like AMD, but at the moment, Intel are wiping the floor with them.

Go for the core2duo for sure

[Anubis386]

yeh go core 2 duo and overclock the sh*te out of it .... thats what i'm doing with my new build

[BigBang]

When in doubt, I head for Tom's Hardware. Take a look at their interactive CPU charts here as a starting point:

http://www.tomshardw...cpu/charts.html

Thanks for that link Brightstar, very informative site. Sods law they didnt have that intel 6300 processor listed, but i went for the nearest one, and you are all correct, the Intel (performance wise) wipes the floor with the AMD, in every test.

Ive spent hours scouring the net looking for details and came up with a headache! Wish i'd asked the question here earlier!!

Strange why AMD cant make a processor that will match the Intel.

But anyway, it looks like i'll be going for the Intel.


Thanks guys

[Ritual33]

I have a laptop with an unlocked Core 2 Duo 2.33. Kicks the s*** out of my brothers "gaming machine".

Regards,
Drew

[BigBang]

Yes apparently the core 2 duo can be overclocked quite safely. Once i get my P.C. i will look into doing this, with a bit (or more than likely a 'lot') of help from you guys. Personally, I wouldnt know where to begin! Ive heard its a pretty easy process, but i spose if you know what to do, you would say that!

[Ritual33]

Yes they can, I have my laptop is running at 2.89 but I've had it at 3.2 no problem. Just worries me thats all, don't want a £3,000 paper weight.

Regards,
Drew

[Andrew]

Although Intel is producing the better, (well faster), processors at present, as ever, AMD still pull Intel's pants down when I comes to value for money.

If you have unlimited money and you want the fastest machine possible, go for Intel, If your looking for a more upgradeable and better value for money machine, go for AMD.



The reason Intel is doing better, is simply because they have more money to throw at the problem. AMD's lack of cash (compared to Intel) forces them to be wise about investment in new process technology. Intel can and does just throw money at it. It's a bit like comparing BP to your local independent petrol station. They are already making 45nm IC's, and sooner or later they are going to need synchrotron x-ray generators if they want smaller devices. This again will present Intel with a brute force advantage, because AMD will not be able to afford one. Having said that, neither can Intel at the moment.

AMD will I'm sure prevail and take the lead again. Historically Intel only holds onto the lead for about the third of the time AMD does. AMD looks like a comeback is in the pipeline. As they now own a chipset, And dedicated graphics company (ATi), one of the major disadvantages AMD had has now been addressed. Previously Intel had an advantage because they made their own chipsets, this on an engineering level makes it far easier to ensure compatibility and achieve higher performance, now AMD is in the same league, one should expect faster development. One can also expect graphics, and thus gaming, to be better on and AMD based computers soon. Because all of a sudden, AMD (through it's purchase of ATi) is leaps and bounds ahead of Intel in terms of graphics procesing.

One thing that has always amazed me, is that AMD have always offered processors that give more computational power per £ than Intel.

[BigBang]

Andrew, that was an intersting read. The AMD may be cheaper if you are buying a processor as a component in a PC you are building, but in my case, the PC i am buying (Dell) is the same price regardless of which processor i opt for, so i may as well go for the faster of the two.

[Andrew]

In that case, it's a clear cut decision then, AMD. Out of the two you specified the AMD processor performs slightly better. Overclocking is possible for either processor, but only if the motherboard supports it; that is important to bear in mind. Also overclocking is not very good for the processor or the RAM or the Motherboard, even when done correctly and well the MTTF is still reduced dramatically. If you ever want to sell a part that has been overclocked you'll find it's value is not as much as you may think. You should overclock if you don't mind ragging the f*ck out of it. You would not buy a second hand scooter from a 16 year old for the same reason . You should buy a system based on it's designed computational power. However, it is also important to note that other factors affect system performance; sometimes more than the processor. RAM (size, speed and quality), the MoBo chipset, graphics cards and choice of Hdd interface all play a big role in system performance.

Dell will use a different motherboard for the two processors. You'd do good the check which one it will be in place of the Intel supporting board. Also, if you choose AMD you really should make sure that Dell use a motherboard that has an "AM2" socket, and obviously a Processor that fits the AM2 socket. Typically, for the same cash you should also get a more feature rich motherboard if you choose AMD.

Another thing to consider is that Vista does not have the level of support for many external devices one would expect. It has by and large been left to the individual hardware manufactures to pay Micro$crew lots of money and develop their own drivers. A lot of software that you may cherish will also not work. My Epsom R340 does not work with Vista properly, neither does my HP printer, or Scanner. If you can, you may want to consider asking Dell for Windows XP with a free upgrade ticket to Vista, and then upgrade when drivers/software is more readily available; hopefully in the not too distant future.

Edited by Andrew, 12 February 2007 - 03:20 PM.

[BigBang]

Thanks for that Andrew. I will take on board your points, as you obviously know your stuff. One thing that you said tho, that the AMD performs better, well according to that website, (toms hardware) the Intel is faster?? Not that it will make an awful lot of difference to me, as im not really a gamer, or intending to run any processor intensive progs.

[cplmac]

I just put together a new machine and went with a Core 2 Duo 6600. I'm very happy with it. Runs nice and cool, and has plenty of power.

[Andrew]

One thing that you said tho, that the AMD performs better, well according to that website, (toms hardware) the Intel is faster??

It greatly depends on what you are doing. Intel has a very strong presence in the bodies that develop benchmarks for processor (well whole system) testing, where as AMD has none at all. There was even an article in the new scientist a year or so ago when Intel rigged it so that their processors looked far faster than AMD processors of the time, even though on previous benchmarks AMD pulled Intel's pants down. Over night Intel could claim that the same processor just magically got faster. This is still the case and most benchmarks are designed solely for testing Intel's processors and chipsets.

Another problem AMD has had in the past is they have had to stick to "standards" to ensure compatibility. This also means shorter lead times but the inability to get 100% out of any given system. Where as Intel have been able to invent hardware magic tricks to get the same result faster (as far as their benchmarks go), because they make their own chipsets as well as processors. They have shorter lead times and the ability to run in-house in-situ testing to calibrate all parts to work at 100%. AMD not owns a chipset company, so development can be expected to be faster. A better gauge of a systems speed is to look at tests run on the commonly used programs that you expect to use regularly. You'll notice that on that website the difference between Intel and AMD shrinks to practically nothing (or AMD being better) when you switch from engineered benchmarks to actual program tests (in terms of cost for the processor).

There is no doubt that Intel does make the fastest "standard production" processor at present. But it is still the case almost across the board that AMD is better value for money; it begs the question, why Intel at all unless your a gaming buff. Main reason; Intel has a lot of influence, on Benchmarks and the big players who buys their chips for OEM systems (HP, Dell etc.).