intel vs amd

ldr

im looking for a new pc or laptop so witch one do ye prefere?
intel duo or amd 64???

djmarkus

is it this time again?

ldr

what do you mean?

Cuddlesworth

Im more of a Flash man myself. I know Supermans fast but hes not that fast. Otherwise whats the point of having the Flash around.

PogMoThoin

Thats like asking "which is better Apples or Oranges".

No honestly man. youre not gonna get a proper answer to this "Arguement". Tell us what processor of each youre thinking bout getting and we can compare the pro's and con's. also what youre gonna use the lappy for.

magick

hmmm interesting question

personally i think Tayto is faster because of their lighter mass but walkers have the edge due to their surface being smoother

now this is unless we are talking about the salt and vinegar brands then i personally think the cache in walkers is bigger but tayto has it on clock speed

Ruu_Old

Atari Jaguar tbh. OP, what do you want to do with your PC or laptop? Are you a gamer or does that stuff matter?

K.O.Kiki

Is everyone forgetting that CoreDuo spanks AMDs?
Or is it time to have a sticky for "best CPU/graphics card/etc" to prevent such cynical responses?

Cuddlesworth

No1, where is this fabaled core duo you speak of because I dont see it in the shops

No2, when it does come out will Amd drop prices on current x2s making them a better buy?

There are pros and cons to this story, this time only leaning slightly in Intels favour rather than the years of domination that Amd had. But Amd is selling chips and Intel is still selling a idea.

DemonOfTheFall

Don't forget that that's Core2Duo not CoreDuo which spanks AMD...

OP : I'd say Intel. I've never read anything particularly good about AMD's laptop chips, other than the non-existant low power turions.

dil999

The choice of Intel or AMD will make absolutely no practical difference to you whatsoever (except don't go for a celeron). Look at battery life, size, weight and price, and a reliable manufacturer. Decide whats right for you and don't worry whether its an AMD or Intel.

And for God's sake dont buy a Dell

Carragherisgod

K.O.Kiki wrote:

Is everyone forgetting that CoreDuo spanks AMDs?
Or is it time to have a sticky for "best CPU/graphics card/etc" to prevent such cynical responses?

How do people know this. I've read some of these articles on the net myself. I won't lie. Right off the bat, I'm a huge AMD fan but these stories saying that CoreDuo spank AMD cannot be a true reflection on performances. All those banchmarks that "beat" AMD are a specific type of benchmark and done with non-public CPUs. I'll bet my right testie those were CoreDuos that will never reach the public market (i.e. more powerful than the released versions are going to be. I can't remember the proper term for them right now. ). Now, CoreDuo may well beat AMD when they are released but until I do/see some "real world" ( by this I mean everyday use) results between Intel/AMD I'll not be convinced either way.

@ LDR: Wait til the end of the month at least because AMDs prices are going to drop when the CoreDuo is released to the public ... If you can wait a little longer until we get some REAL benchmarks between the CoreDuo & AMD64 x2 then I suggest you wait.

Hope this helps

Dave

BadCharlie

U should not stay buying AMD or Intel cause u always bouth them. You should buy whats best for you and good value for money. I have been AMD all my building computer life, but if intel has something thats much better and at a good price i will have no problem in switching over.

Villain

Wait for the new Intel Core 2 being released this month, it beats AMD by quite a bit, google and I'm sure you'll find some benchmarks.

Carragherisgod

irish1 wrote:

Wait for the new Intel Core 2 being released this month, it beats AMD by quite a bit, google and I'm sure you'll find some benchmarks.

Yes, I'm sure you will ... but these are not real world benchmarks. Most of these benchmarks you speak of are made for Intel CPUs. Intel do this every time they release a new CPU. My brother is a huge Intel fan but even he says the CoreDuo benchmarks are not a good guide to go by.

Just my opinion really ... but again, I am an AMD fanboy :rolleyes:

Villain

Well I was going on an article I read in the latest edition of PC Plus and it certianly seems that Intel have caught up with AMD and surpassed them by quite a bit, they also reckon the Core 2 will be very good value, it seems AMD now has to play catch up.

Carragherisgod

Did it mention what benchmarks/apps they used for the tests? And was it against the socket 939 or the AM2 socket Athlon 64?

Villain

I believe it was compared to the AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 CPU overclocked to 2.8GHz but I don't have the mag with me so not 100%

Carragherisgod

I'll have to go buy that mag. I don't think the CoreDuo would stand up against an FX60 ... not calling you a liar or anything but the FX60 is an absolute monster of a CPU

Villain

I'm talking about the new Core 2 Duo now, its not been released until 23rd of this month, the range of chips are code named Conroe I believe.

Carragherisgod

Oh right. Well that is not a fair comparison then as the FX 60 is not availible in AM2 and cannot use DDR2 RAM. I think a better comparison would be between an FX62 AM2 with DDR2 Ram and a Core 2 Duo with the same RAM.

SickBoy

Carragherisgod wrote:

Oh right. Well that is not a fair comparison then as the FX 60 is not availible in AM2 and cannot use DDR2 RAM. I think a better comparison would be between an FX62 AM2 with DDR2 Ram and a Core 2 Duo with the same RAM.

I know it's Tomshardware so take these results with a pinch of salt but I've read a few of these reviews from other sites and they all come to the same conclusion, the Core2Duo(Conroe) is an animal!
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/05/first_benchmarks_conroe_vs_fx-62_uk/
BTW the AMD chip compared to the Core2Duo was the FX62

Dooom

Carragherisgod wrote:

I'll bet my right testie those were CoreDuos that will never reach the public market (i.e. more powerful than the released versions are going to be. I can't remember the proper term for them right now. ).

If you're talking about engineering samples, I read an article where Intel were saying people should stay away from them if they can, because there's issues with the stepping.
The revised Conroe versions have better stepping. So the next batch'll be somewhat better than the previous.

However, I see a lot of people being confused with CoreDuo. And Core 2 Duo.
Core 2 Duo is the Conroe chip, which allegedly whoops AMD's ass.
CoreDuo on the otherhand, doesn't.

Dooom

Carragherisgod wrote:

Oh right. Well that is not a fair comparison then as the FX 60 is not availible in AM2 and cannot use DDR2 RAM. I think a better comparison would be between an FX62 AM2 with DDR2 Ram and a Core 2 Duo with the same RAM.

Even if there was an AM2 version of the FX60, there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference imo. The switch to DDR2 really hasn't benefited the AMD chips yet. AM2 barely shows much of a difference over S939.

Carragherisgod

Quote : "These benchmarks were run on a Conroe system during the Intel demonstrations. We collected the results, and then compared them later to those from an optimally configured Athlon FX-62 system in our own test labs."

This is no way to conduct a comparison. Typical Toms Hardware though :rolleyes:

Carragherisgod

Spike wrote:

Even if there was an AM2 version of the FX62, there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference imo. The switch to DDR2 really hasn't benefited the AMD chips yet. AM2 barely shows much of a difference over S939.

I've tested the AM2s on DDR2 (unfortunatly not the FX62) and the difference is only about 3% to 5% but I feel with new releases of the AM2 and updated/improved memory controllers on the die, this increase in performance will grow (I hope ).

Dave

Villain

I believe from what I have read, the big advantage Intel have with the Core 2 its value for money, not only does it kick AMD's ass for performance but it is going to cheap!!

Carragherisgod

I hope the new Intel is as good as they say. Competition is good for everybody

Dooom

Yeah, I'd say the next batch of AM2's should show a decent bit of oomph.
Irish1's right though, you can buy a 6600 for circa £214 and clock it to 3.5ghz on air.
Or you could buy a FX-62 for circa £600 and clock it to 3.2/4ghz on air.

K.O.Kiki

Strangely, all the AM2 benchmarks I've been reading show a decrease in performance compared to skt939, owing to DDR2 RAM having inferior (looser) timings.
All the CoreDuo opinions were based on laptop reviews (although, now that I think of it I may have been thinking of Pentium M... still spanked skt939's in games tests)
Core2Duo is looking like the new king of speed (from previews).

Sources: HardOCP, Anandtech, ExtremeTech, etc.

*update*

• $530 Core2Duo E6700 (2.66Ghz) > $1000 AMD FX-62 (2.8Ghz) @HardOCP in gaming benchmarks (admittedly, by less than 5%)
• Core2Duo E6700 spanking FX-62 in HardOCP's Music, Images & Movies benchmarks.
• Power consumption @HardOCP: Core2Duo E6700 hungry at idle, barely beating FX-62 @50% load, definite win @100% load

pred racer

look here.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/14/intel_core2_duo/

Its only tested against the best p4 but you can compare that to other intel vs AMD benchmarks.

BadCharlie wrote:

U should not stay buying AMD or Intel cause u always bouth them. You should buy whats best for you and good value for money. I have been AMD all my building computer life, but if intel has something thats much better and at a good price i will have no problem in switching over.

as above, its the only way that makes sense.

davidm732

vote=amd 64