Intel Vs Amd Chips

ublinina2

Can somebody explain and rank the following chips by which are the best - 1.Pentium 4; 2. AMD® AthlonTM 64 processor 3200+, 3.Intel® CoreT 2 Duo ,4.AMD® AthlonTM 64X2 Dual-core processor 5000+, 5.Intel® Pentium® D Processor 805 (2.66 GHz, 2x1 MB L2 cache, 533 MHz FSB) 6. Intel Celeron.

Could you please explain the differences in each of these . thanks.

SouperComputer

The differences are too many to list. In any case, AMD and Intel both make excellent chips. Generally avoid celeron, but at the right price they can be worth going for. AMD generally give more bang per buck.

The question is not which is best though, but which is best for you?

So, what you plan to do with this prospective processor?

Anti

Well the core 2 duo would be the fastest cpu. And the celeron the slowest, Like SC said What do you plan to do. Game ? 3d imaging ? office applications ? surfing the web/emails.

KdjaCL

Gaming Amd
Multi tasking office stuff Intel
Video encoding Amd
Audio making Intel


in a nutshell


kdjac

conzy

KdjaCL wrote:

Gaming Amd
Multi tasking office stuff Intel
Video encoding Amd
Audio making Intel


in a nutshell


kdjac

no

The Core 2 Duo CPUs are faster than AMD in all areas atm.....

KdjaCL

conzymaher wrote:

no

The Core 2 Duo CPUs are faster than AMD in all areas atm.....

Have to disagree i just a repaired a Dell 9150 witha Core Duo (p4d925 3ghz) 2gb ram (533) Intel 945 chipset (7300 GS) and as it was here i was fecking with it and compared to a AMD X2 4600 2gb ram (400) Nf4 (6800GT)

Not that often you get 2 pcs of that kind together.

AMD ran COH better (even considering gpu difference)
AMD encoded a DVD "faster"
Intel didnt stutter when pretty much every office program i had was open AMD did, Intel did an mp3 in less than a minute AMD took over a minute.


That was Core Duo vs X2 in real time feckin about.
Still gonna go with above summing up.



kdjac

uberpixie

KdjaCL wrote:

Have to disagree i just a repaired a Dell 9150 witha Core Duo (p4d925 3ghz) 2gb ram (533) Intel 945 chipset (7300 GS) and as it was here i was fecking with it and compared to a AMD X2 4600 2gb ram (400) Nf4 (6800GT)

Not that often you get 2 pcs of that kind together.

AMD ran COH better (even considering gpu difference)
AMD encoded a DVD "faster"
Intel didnt stutter when pretty much every office program i had was open AMD did, Intel did an mp3 in less than a minute AMD took over a minute.


That was Core Duo vs X2 in real time feckin about.
Still gonna go with above summing up.
kdjac

Core Duo is not equal to Core 2 Duo

"Possibly the biggest improvement is an added pipeline. Where as Core Duo can complete three instructions per cycle, Core 2 Duo can now complete four which an obvious increase in processing power and efficiency."

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=3161


Overall though, there is very little difference in performance between the AMD X2s and the Core2Duos at very high resolution in games. Only a hand full of frames tips it to Intel's favour.

At lower resolutions, the gap is a good bit bigger though....

Endurance Man

KdjaCL wrote:

Have to disagree i just a repaired a Dell 9150 witha Core Duo (p4d925 3ghz) 2gb ram (533) Intel 945 chipset (7300 GS) and as it was here i was fecking with it and compared to a AMD X2 4600 2gb ram (400) Nf4 (6800GT)

Not that often you get 2 pcs of that kind together.

AMD ran COH better (even considering gpu difference)
AMD encoded a DVD "faster"
Intel didnt stutter when pretty much every office program i had was open AMD did, Intel did an mp3 in less than a minute AMD took over a minute.


That was Core Duo vs X2 in real time feckin about.
Still gonna go with above summing up.



kdjac

Core Duo > AMD, you would be mad in the head to buy an AMD at the moment. Those duo's the sh!te.

po0k

POWER ftw

Anti

the 925 is not a core duo either, its a dual core p4. Called a pentium D. A core duo is like whats in my laptop, core duo t2300 (2 x 1.66ghz) basicially 2 pentium M ( centrino cores ) on one die.

As for the AMD running coh quicker, Well thats not hard, considering it was running the top of the range Nvidia 6xxx series card. And the Intel Is running the bottom of the range 7xxx series card.. As for the amd encoding a dvd quicker, It should be quicker, as its a superior chip. Also was it the toledo or windsor core ? Not that it makes a difference.

As you can see from this single core AMD chips hammer the top of the range pentium D chips. And the core 2 duo chips obliterate everything. And in a few weeks We have the kentsfield chips ( quad core ) And AMD are launcging their 4X4 which is believed ot be between 2.6 and 3.0ghz. AMD are claiming this will out perform the kentsfield. And i for one hope this is a accurate statement.

http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=477&model2=439&chart=194

Mutant_Fruit

On the performance per euro range the Core 2 Duo's are head and shoulders above anything else.

£100 ex vat gets a core 2 duo 6300+. £133 ex vat gets a slightly slower AMD X2 4400+.

Anti

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

On the performance per euro range the Core 2 Duo's are head and shoulders above anything else.

£100 ex vat gets a core 2 duo 6300+. £133 ex vat gets a slightly slower AMD X2 4400+.

Slightly slower ?

I coldnt find a online result for a e6300 and a 4600+ x2, but i have for a e6400 and a 4800+ x2. The core 2 duo is a hell of a lot faster, in games, dvd encoding and everything else. Im even guessing a e6300 would be just as fast or faster then the 5000+x2.

Anti

And they only have half the l2 cache of the e6600 and above :0

SouperComputer

SyxPak wrote:

POWER ftw

Indeed, but instaling "teh windoze" is a bit of a problem. Unless you are really fond of NT 4.0

Khannie

What you read:

ublinina2 wrote:

Could you please explain the differences in each of these . thanks.

What was really said:

ublinina2 wrote:

Could someone do my college assignment for me please? Thanks.

TerrorFirmer

KdjaCL wrote:

Have to disagree i just a repaired a Dell 9150 witha Core Duo (p4d925 3ghz) 2gb ram (533) Intel 945 chipset (7300 GS) and as it was here i was fecking with it and compared to a AMD X2 4600 2gb ram (400) Nf4 (6800GT)

Not that often you get 2 pcs of that kind together.

AMD ran COH better (even considering gpu difference)
AMD encoded a DVD "faster"
Intel didnt stutter when pretty much every office program i had was open AMD did, Intel did an mp3 in less than a minute AMD took over a minute.


That was Core Duo vs X2 in real time feckin about.
Still gonna go with above summing up.



kdjac

You do realise you are

1) comparing a Pentium D to an X2, not a Core 2 Duo
2) Comparing a 7300GS in the PD to a 6800GT in the X2

Thats about a fair as comparing ice cream to a rock in a melting contest

Sir Random

The Core 2 Duo (Conroe) processors are way ahead of any other cpu.

My E6600 @ 3.2Ghz can calculate 1M SuperPi in 15 secs. AMD's FX-62 takes 29 Seconds @ 3.1 Ghz.

Cuddlesworth

Sir Random wrote:

The Core 2 Duo (Conroe) processors are way ahead of any other cpu.

My E6600 @ 3.2Ghz can calculate 1M SuperPi in 15 secs. AMD's FX-62 takes 29 Seconds @ 3.1 Ghz.

Since when did super pi become the main indicaton of cpu performance. Christ that benchmark died years ago.

Anti

Actually krazy, It is the most commonly used benchmark along with orthos in the overclocking scene. But it is used for stability more then benchmarking

And sir random, Not that i dont believe you, but a x6800 @ 5.33ghz does it in 8.9 seconds And the dice cooled ( dry ice ). Any chance of posting a screen, As im getting a e6600 myself in a week or two.

And havok, Read the rest of the posts before you reply, As i said the same thing

Sir Random

krazy_8s wrote:

Since when did super pi become the main indicaton of cpu performance. Christ that benchmark died years ago.

What makes you think it died?
All the world's best overclockers (Coolaler, fugger, macci, etc) use superpi as their main performance indicator. Anyone interested in overclocking would have followed the race for a 9sec pi time (on xtremesystems.org) when the conroe ES chips first appeared.


anti,

I just did a rerun with the ram @ 712Mhz:



Full size image:
http://users.gaelic.ie/handspun/superpi.jpg

Capt'n Midnight

As SC said it does depend on what you want it to do. For some tasks the GPU on a video card may be a hundred times faster. For others it would be far worse. For some tasks dual processors may be better than a single one.

Overall you need to ID the bottleneck and sort it out. more memory, faster drives, better video card might be a better investment

conzy

Well my uber 1337 Athlon 64 3700 can calculate 1 Million digits of Pi in 27seconds @3ghz

GoneShootin

Khannie wrote:

What you read:



What was really said:

I don't think that's fair Khannie. I was going to post a thread similar to this one asking about current cpu comparisons. Plus he asked about specific models from the range - not brand vs brand.

Anyway - Core 2 Duo ftw.

Anti

sir_random

That a impressive calc for a modest overclock.

* tips hat to you sir *

Im ordering mine next week. or the week after. I plan for about 3.8ghz or more. On water ofcourse

ublinina2

basically i am just looking to compare those 4 chips as i am thinking of buying a computer soon. I will be using the PC for general office stuff like word , excel .powerpoint etc. and internet , digital photography and dont want the computer to stall too much when i am multitasking. I might use the new PC for the odd game now and again.

The computer i am thinking of buying has a Pentium D chip. Is this a dual chip and if so is it any good. Would it rank far above a Pentium 4?

Sir Random

The Pentium-D is basically 2x Pentium 4 cpus. Not really much faster than a P4, but theoretically capable of better multitasking (running multiple programs simultaneously).

The Core 2 Duo (conroe) is a lot faster (at everything), so I'd advise going for that over Pentium-D anyday.


anti,

It's an indication of how well these chips overclock, that you refer to a 33% overclock on air as 'moderate' . When you get your conroe, just watch how fast XP installs

Khannie

GoneShootin wrote:

I don't think that's fair Khannie. I was going to post a thread similar to this one asking about current cpu comparisons. Plus he asked about specific models from the range - not brand vs brand.

Ah, I was only half joking. It was the specificity of the models that made it sound like college work to me. We had to do stuff like that in college, compare and contrast various architectures, etc. and we do get homework threads here as you're well aware.

OFC I thought it could be a legit thread. Turns out that it is.

GoneShootin

Khannie wrote:

Ah, I was only half joking. It was the specificity of the models that made it sound like college work to me. We had to do stuff like that in college, compare and contrast various architectures, etc. and we do get homework threads here as you're well aware.

OFC I thought it could be a legit thread. Turns out that it is.

If only you were in 53° 35'N, 6° 6'W I'd bate ya. But because your in 53° 34'N, 6° 6'W I can't