Core 2 Duo- AMD Equavilant?

J

J_I_M_B_O

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
400
What is the AMD equivilant to the Core 2 Duo, not in terms of technology, in terms of performance
 
That is a very subjective question.... Which model?

Right now the Core2 has the crown in absolute performance, but what do you do with your computer? How much money do you have to spend? Is your usage graphics intense, or maybe integer intense, or maybe memory intense?

Like I said... Very subjective.
 
J_I_M_B_O said:
What is the AMD equivilant to the Core 2 Duo, not in terms of technology, in terms of performance
Click to expand...
AMD can match the lower end Core 2 Duo's, but not the upper level ones.

I would say the Athlon FX 62 is about equal or slightly slower to the Core 2 Duo E6600, with the E6700 and X6800 having no equals in performance.
 
I'm going to pull these numbers out of my ass:

E6300 = 4600+
E6400 = 5000+
E6600 >= FX-62
E6700 and X6800 has no AMD equivalent
 
1) I have built for others but personally wouldnt touch an intel processor for my own use since the original AMD Thunderbirds came out. I was AMD all the way.

2) Just bought Intel E6300 1.86GHz for $193 + shipping and Gigabyte P965-DQ6 (about $219 OUCH!).

On stock intel cooler I was immedately able to overclock to 3.04 GHz (450 x 7 FSB) with load temps in the mid to upper 50s.

Installing a Thermakake Big Water water cooling setup ($145) I am COMPLETELY stable for gaming/whatever at 7 x 475MHz fsb = 3.25GHz with ambient temps at no load and about +7 to 10 over ambient at 100% load on both cores (2 instances of Dark Age of Camelot + superPI doing pi to 1 million decimal places in 17sec ) with fans running almost silently.

Soooooo with recent price cuts I have no idea which AMD cpu you could get for $200 (say $250 taking into account a premium for an intel board) but I can say with certaintly that stock cooled or water cooled the AMD would be smoked by this new Intel thingy. It overclocks too easily and runs too cool and the new cpu design is a winner. :)


AMD, it was a nice run guys but you just lost the price/performance race.

If you overclock, imo there is NO AMD processor that matchs the price performace of the Core 2 Duos. (I thought I would be dead before I ever wrote something like that) .

If you just looking to update an existing AMD system I guess this is no help. Sorry.
 
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor T7200 (4MB Cache/2.00GHz/667MHz FSB)< that's mine.
How does that compare?
 
InorganicMatter said:
I'm going to pull these numbers out of my ass:

E6300 = 4600+
E6400 = 5000+
E6600 >= FX-62
E6700 and X6800 has no AMD equivalent
Click to expand...

Clost I was thinking more like

6300 = FX-62
6400 = FX-64
6600 = FX-68
6700 = FX-70
6800 = FX-72

Too bad the only real AMD is FX-62.

Then in another month or 2 when the 6900 is released, AMD will need an FX-74! ;)
 
I'll say it once, and I'll say it again. Wait for AMD's 65nm counterpart to arrive. By then, Conroe (Core-2-Duo) and Kentsfield (Quad Core on the same process) will have some proper competition. I just pray that AMD gets it right the second time with AM3.
 
Merom = Conroe... same exact chip just different FSB.

Bottom of the line Merom might be equal to the top of line AMD, performance wise
 
chrisf6969 said:
Clost I was thinking more like

6300 = FX-62
6400 = FX-64
6600 = FX-68
6700 = FX-70
6800 = FX-72

Too bad the only real AMD is FX-62.

Then in another month or 2 when the 6900 is released, AMD will need an FX-74! ;)
Click to expand...

Ermm, are you talking about SuperPi? LOL :rolleyes:

InorganicMatter has it spot on IMO. AMD has competitive products for the lower end of the C2D lineup but has nothing that can beat the E6600 and beyond.
 
1) I have built for others but personally wouldnt touch an intel processor for my own use since the original AMD Thunderbirds came out. I was AMD all the way.

2) Just bought Intel E6300 1.86GHz for $193 + shipping and Gigabyte P965-DQ6 (about $219 OUCH!).

On stock intel cooler I was immedately able to overclock to 3.04 GHz (450 x 7 FSB) with load temps in the mid to upper 50s.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in seeing any 3dmark, systemmark or other benchmarks with ur proc against like the E6600 with more cache. Thx
 
"I would be interested in seeing any 3dmark, systemmark or other benchmarks with ur proc against like the E6600 with more cache. Thx"


"We already illustrated in our earlier review that the larger L2 cache found in the E6600 and above is good for up to 10% of a performance boost depending on the application, but the fact of the matter is that the cheapest 4MB Core 2 Duo is $316 while you can have the E6300 and E6400 for $183 and $224 respectively."

anandtech.com is your friend. :D


my point was about the price/performance ratios not raw power. There are several posts with screenshots of cpuid and superPI results. I would hesitate to use most benchmarks as other system components would contribute to the results. I havent even looked at how well the more expensive conroes overclock other than to note that with "normal" water cooling 3.4 3.5 seems to be the ceiling unless extream cooling is used. So I am loosing some performance using a E 3300 (about 10% according to an article at anandtech if memory serves me, but my overclock is imo insane, it runs everything I throw at it with ease and was the cheapest one. Thats my main point I guess, I am a cheap bastid :p
 
harpoon said:
Ermm, are you talking about SuperPi? LOL :rolleyes:

InorganicMatter has it spot on IMO. AMD has competitive products for the lower end of the C2D lineup but has nothing that can beat the E6600 and beyond.
Click to expand...

I was assuming everyone in this forum would be overclocking.
Even the slowest 6300's with a slight overclock catches an overclocked FX-62.
An FX-62 might make 3Ghz, a 6300 even if it only hits 2.5Ghz should be all around faster. And most people are hitting MUCH MUCH more than 2.5Ghz.
 
i went directly from a 3800 x2 @ 2800 with 2gb ram and sli to a 6600 with 2gb ddr2 and sli (yep). everything else the same (drives, psu. etc). at stock speed the 6600 does a little better than the overclocked x2 in f.e.a.r., farcry and oblivion. does much better in superpi (l2 cache prob). overclocked to 3700, the c2d makes the x2 seem like i used to have my monitor connected into a cinderblock.
 
My observation is that, in general, Core2 + 400MHz = AMD X2. So a X2 4800+ should be about on the level with a E6400, both at stock. Crank the Core2 to 2.8GHz and good luck catching it with anything AMD.
 
merom actually isnt turning out that great, its ever so slightly faster than a yonah and produce more heat, read a review on extremetech.com
 
Dew said:
My observation is that, in general, Core2 + 400MHz = AMD X2. So a X2 4600+ should be about on the level with a E6400, both at stock. Crank the Core2 to 2.8GHz and good luck catching it with anything AMD.
Click to expand...
Don't know if I agree. I think cache may also play a part, though- an E6400 is a little bit behind an FX-62, but E6600 blows the FX out of the water.
 
mavalpha said:
Don't know if I agree. I think cache may also play a part, though- an E6400 is a little bit behind an FX-62, but E6600 blows the FX out of the water.
Click to expand...

It is a rough scale. The thing is, once any C2D reaches 2.8GHz, it is well beyond AMD's reach(unless you go phase, and that is iffy).
 
Dew said:
My observation is that, in general, Core2 + 400MHz = AMD X2. So a X2 4800+ should be about on the level with a E6400, both at stock. Crank the Core2 to 2.8GHz and good luck catching it with anything AMD.
Click to expand...

I think that C2D x 1.2 = AMD X2 to be more accurate. 400MHz is a static figure, obviously it varies depending on the C2D clockspeed.

To put things into perspective, when we're talking overclocking: C2D @ 3.5 x 1.2 = 4.2GHz X2! :eek:

Don't see AMD scaling K8 to such heights, even with 65nm.
 
these are 3dmark 06 demo numbers. all with the same ram@ 4-4-4-12, same vid card 7950 @550/700

athlon 4600x2 stock 2.4ghz
3dmarks 7993
sm2 3705
hdr 3659
cpu 1831

e6300 stock 1.86ghz
3dmarks 7960
sm2 3664
hdr 3643
cpu 1623

e6300 @ 3.01ghz
3dmarks 9038
sm2 4001
hdr 3819
cpu 2544


discuss
 
AngrySheep said:
these are 3dmark 06 demo numbers. all with the same ram@ 4-4-4-12, same vid card 7950 @550/700

athlon 4600x2 stock 2.4ghz
3dmarks 7993
sm2 3705
hdr 3659
cpu 1831

e6300 stock 1.86ghz
3dmarks 7960
sm2 3664
hdr 3643
cpu 1623

e6300 @ 3.01ghz
3dmarks 9038
sm2 4001
hdr 3819
cpu 2544


discuss
Click to expand...

Whats there to discuss, the numbers speak for themselves don't they?
 
AngrySheep said:
these are 3dmark 06 demo numbers. all with the same ram@ 4-4-4-12, same vid card 7950 @550/700

athlon 4600x2 stock 2.4ghz
3dmarks 7993
sm2 3705
hdr 3659
cpu 1831

e6300 stock 1.86ghz
3dmarks 7960
sm2 3664
hdr 3643
cpu 1623

e6300 @ 3.01ghz
3dmarks 9038
sm2 4001
hdr 3819
cpu 2544


discuss
Click to expand...

Bang, shot that down :p
 
AngrySheep said:
these are 3dmark 06 demo numbers. all with the same ram@ 4-4-4-12, same vid card 7950 @550/700

athlon 4600x2 stock 2.4ghz
3dmarks 7993
sm2 3705
hdr 3659
cpu 1831

e6300 stock 1.86ghz
3dmarks 7960
sm2 3664
hdr 3643
cpu 1623

e6300 @ 3.01ghz
3dmarks 9038
sm2 4001
hdr 3819
cpu 2544


discuss
Click to expand...

I prefer to use 3dMark2001 to show CPU differences. B/c basically all of the tests end up being a CPU test with a good videocard. Where with 3DMark2006 you just have those 2 CPU tests to show you the CPU score.

With your benches you can see Core 2 with a 30% clock deficit is only behind less than 13%. Then at 3Ghz 61% more clockspeed, the cpu score increased 57% so it scales well. At 2Ghz it probably would have matched it on the CPU score almost exactly.

I would like to see that 6300 @ 2.0Ghz. To see the 1.2x rule show itself.
IE: 2Ghz Core 2 x 1.2 = 2.4Ghz X2

To be fair you didn't provide overclocked results for the X2.

Here's a bench of my e6600 @ 3Ghz with a 7900GTX:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=472453
2608 CPU score.

Here's my 3dMark 2001 score since I think thats a better illustration of CPU power: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9039225
 
yea, i was fighting with RAM demons at the time so i couldnt get a stable overclock out of the athlon. in fact, it wasnt prime stable at stock speeds. bad dimm it turns out. would boot and run just fine @2.7ghz, but failed prime rather quickly. i guess bad RAM will do that.
 
J_I_M_B_O said:
What is the AMD equivilant to the Core 2 Duo, not in terms of technology, in terms of performance
Click to expand...

Merom has simply no AMD equivalent.No Turion X2 is able to hold a candle to it ( or to Yonah for that matter ) , so rest assure , you have quitte a beast in your notebook.
 
chrisf6969 said:
I was assuming everyone in this forum would be overclocking.
Even the slowest 6300's with a slight overclock catches an overclocked FX-62.
An FX-62 might make 3Ghz, a 6300 even if it only hits 2.5Ghz should be all around faster. And most people are hitting MUCH MUCH more than 2.5Ghz.
Click to expand...
actually its when a E6300/E6400/E6600/E6700/X6800 are @ 2.33 ghz are they faster then an FX-62. From there on out, its smooth sailing..
 
boomheadshot45 said:
actually its when a E6300/E6400/E6600/E6700/X6800 are @ 2.33 ghz are they faster then an FX-62. From there on out, its smooth sailing..
Click to expand...

The difference in performance is about 200/250mhz from a AMD compared to a conroe witch is faster in 32-bit but conroe is not in 64-bit.

To the other. Ofcorse a FX can reach 3ghz, they do more then that all the time well more like stuff on the 939. Most are just bios or mobo limited. I make my X2 to 3ghz.
 
from what i understand, the AMD cpu's offer a greater percentage increase in performance when switching from 32 bit to 64 bit implementation. though the conroe retains the lead in terms of outright performance.

so switching to 64bit narrows the margin, but due to the newer more optimized architecture of the intel design, the AMD processors is still posting lower numbers in benchmarks.

however, i personally really havent seen enough testing to 100% back this up. my overall distrust of most internet benchmarking is considerable.
 
Serge84 said:
The difference in performance is about 200/250mhz from a AMD compared to a conroe witch is faster in 32-bit but conroe is not in 64-bit.

To the other. Ofcorse a FX can reach 3ghz, they do more then that all the time well more like stuff on the 939. Most are just bios or mobo limited. I make my X2 to 3ghz.
Click to expand...

Well then why does your sig say 2.79Ghz ? Truth is most people don't get much above 2.8-3Ghz on an X2 aircooled. Which is not the case with even these first retail stepping Core2's (they hit 3.0-3.2+ fairly easily). And the newer weeks seem to be hitting 3.4-3.6.
 
Serge84 said:
The difference in performance is about 200/250mhz from a AMD compared to a conroe witch is faster in 32-bit but conroe is not in 64-bit.

To the other. Ofcorse a FX can reach 3ghz, they do more then that all the time well more like stuff on the 939. Most are just bios or mobo limited. I make my X2 to 3ghz.
Click to expand...

**cough**-->B@llSh*t-->/**cough**

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x6800&page=6

In fact reading the whole review might help you.

Best stock gaming performance on the market? You got it. The X6800 holds a sizable lead over the FX-62. We’re definitely hitting a graphics card-level limitation with our FEAR benchmark, however, as the extra speed of the Core 2 Extreme did not yield the performance we would normally expect.
Click to expand...

Even at 3GHz, Athlon FX-ANYMODEL has its ass handed to it. The only thing that saves it from a complete Blowout, is that at 175FPS FEAR is bottlenecked LOL!

Now please stop spreading that 64bit FUD. I gave you links to show that was BS. Yet you, Duby, and others continue to spread it.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=3

OS Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 (WorldBench only)
Click to expand...

So where in the hell is this AMD 64bit magic you speak of?

http://www.futurepowerpc.com/scripts/product.asp?PRDCODE=MBAS-P5NSLI&REFID=FR

Asus P5N-SLI Socket 775 nForce 570 SLI ATX
Price: $111.30 Availability: In Stock
Click to expand...

Can't even use expensive Motherboards as an excuse.
 
chrisf6969 said:
Damn where was that mobo, when I was ordering. I wish I had seen it, I might have gotten it! Actually, I'm glad I didn't get it, b/c then I'd be pondering getting another 7900 GTX for SLI.
Click to expand...
It just recently came out. Now if ASUS can only get their 590SLI boards out the door...c'mon ASUS, you can't let DFI beat you!
 
Donnie27 said:
**cough**-->B@llSh*t-->/**cough**

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x6800&page=6

In fact reading the whole review might help you.

Even at 3GHz, Athlon FX-ANYMODEL has it ass hadned to it. The only thing that save a complete Blowout, is that at 175FPS FEAR is bottlenecked LOL!

Now please stop spreading that 64bit FUD. I gave you links to show that was BS. Yet you, Duby, and others continue to spread it.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/core2/index.x?pg=3

So where in the hell is this AMD 64bit magic you speak of?

http://www.futurepowerpc.com/scripts/product.asp?PRDCODE=MBAS-P5NSLI&REFID=FR

Can't even use expensive Motherboards as an excuse.
Click to expand...
You hit every nail on the head. No reason to no go Conroe at this point.
 
mavalpha said:
Don't know if I agree. I think cache may also play a part, though- an E6400 is a little bit behind an FX-62, but E6600 blows the FX out of the water.
Click to expand...

I'M TALKING ABOUT MEMRON!!! NOT CONROE
 
J_I_M_B_O said:
I'M TALKING ABOUT MEMRON!!! NOT CONROE
Click to expand...


Here... I'll answer this. AMD doesn't have anything that competes with Merom since their mobile line is lacking. Intel has had the Laptop market pretty well locked for quite some time now... and it's not likely going to change anytime soon.
 
This is what you're looking for. But like everyone in this thread has said, any Turion 64 will have its ass handed to it by a Core 2 Duo.

As an aside, there was no need to be so rude. The Core 2 Duo nomenclature applies to both the Conroe desktop and the Merom mobile parts. If you meant just Merom, you should have specified that you were talking about laptops. They weren't wrong by discussing Conroe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top