Hello everyone. I've been hearing all the cries to ditch AMD and run over to the Intel camp because their C2D line blows away anything AMD has out at the moment. I am not saying it's bs but I have a question. Every article or review I've read compares the C2D chips stock and overclocked against AMD procs at stock speeds. I have not seen any reviews comparing the 2 platforms o/c'd on both sides. So I ask you AMD o/c fanatics; "Are you getting blown away by Intel's latest offerings"? No flaming please I am curious to know. Thanks.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
X2 vs C2D question
- Thread starter lodingi
- Start date
Intel still has the lead OC'd even greater then stock becouse they OC higher too.
But in reality it isnt that much different. In my experience clock on clock the Core2 is about 7 percent faster, in addition to the higher clocks, it is about 15 percent faster in the very best case.
Then you have the Intel !!!!!!s that blow it out of proportion and insist that Superpi is the only benchmark that exists....
At this point if you are buying a new system Buy a Core2, but if you can wait, or just want to upgrade, then please do so. Ether way your not that far behind, and AMD will catch up by this summer.
But in reality it isnt that much different. In my experience clock on clock the Core2 is about 7 percent faster, in addition to the higher clocks, it is about 15 percent faster in the very best case.
Then you have the Intel !!!!!!s that blow it out of proportion and insist that Superpi is the only benchmark that exists....
At this point if you are buying a new system Buy a Core2, but if you can wait, or just want to upgrade, then please do so. Ether way your not that far behind, and AMD will catch up by this summer.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
you want to upgrade the rig in your sig to a C2D??
sheesh... i'll never understand the ppl that just *have* to have the best, even if it is a small step up....
sheesh... i'll never understand the ppl that just *have* to have the best, even if it is a small step up....
+1. I'm still on a Socket A rig, my brother is giving me his Sempron 754 soon and I'm super excited about it, even if it is a few generations old.
[BRO]Alaskan
Gawd
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
- Messages
- 954
There is a reason to ditch a 939pin X2. The prices you can get for one on E-bay will more than buy your C2D chip but then you still have to buy DDR2 and motherboard. I would not go through the expence for a 30%-40% improvement (O/Cing only).
People around here ain't idiots (well, most ain't, anyway 
) and C2D really is 'the shit' right now but if you're wanting proof that an overclocked C2D owns an overclocked X2... well, this should be plenty... knock yourself out.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html
Proof enough yet?
The E6300 isn't even maxed out btw, it's running at 2.94GHz at stock voltage because the 975X mobo is at its FSB limit, but the more popular (and cheaper) P965 boards generally have a higher FSB ceiling. A fully overclocked E6300 would open up an even bigger can of whoopass on the competition: (maxed E6300 @ 3.36GHz) http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014
PS. I'll probably be called an Intel fanb0y for posting all these benchmarks. Bring on the flames! /dons flameproof suit
) and C2D really is 'the shit' right now but if you're wanting proof that an overclocked C2D owns an overclocked X2... well, this should be plenty... knock yourself out. http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6300.html
Proof enough yet?
The E6300 isn't even maxed out btw, it's running at 2.94GHz at stock voltage because the 975X mobo is at its FSB limit, but the more popular (and cheaper) P965 boards generally have a higher FSB ceiling. A fully overclocked E6300 would open up an even bigger can of whoopass on the competition: (maxed E6300 @ 3.36GHz) http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014
PS. I'll probably be called an Intel fanb0y for posting all these benchmarks. Bring on the flames! /dons flameproof suit
So you reckon 7% average clock for clock yeah?
Sorry duby, I like you man, but I couldn't help myself.
PS. Credit where credit is due, these charts were not done by myself (I'm far too lazy for that
) but by 'JumpingJack' from THG forums.No I don't want to upgrade. I am quite happy with my rig. After reading many articles I doubted all the claims that C2D was miles and miles ahead of the X2 chips. I do not o/c my proc so I wanted to ask those who do how it compares to the Intel procs.
You can believe what you want to believe, but I have both chips and benched both chips with the applications that I use with the settings that I use.
If you want to believe Anand with his hand picked golden sample. and his PAID attempt,,,,, Well, I guess that is something you'll have to cope with....
I think most reasonable people here can see the clear BIAS... How many of those benches were low resolution games? How many of them were synthetic benches that Intel PAYS for? How many of those benches do you use daily?
How usefull are those benches to you? Since I dont run benches they mean NOTHING In the applications that I use it is no more then 7 percent clock on clock. And 15 percent at max clock That is the simple fact.
If you want to believe Anand with his hand picked golden sample. and his PAID attempt,,,,, Well, I guess that is something you'll have to cope with....
I think most reasonable people here can see the clear BIAS... How many of those benches were low resolution games? How many of them were synthetic benches that Intel PAYS for? How many of those benches do you use daily?
How usefull are those benches to you? Since I dont run benches they mean NOTHING In the applications that I use it is no more then 7 percent clock on clock. And 15 percent at max clock That is the simple fact.
I chose to drop in an Opty 165 instead of going the C2D route. The benchmarks just further my thoughts that I made a good decision, because this computer is primarily for gaming.
The speed of encoding doesn't really bother me, I end up doing a lot of it on my P4 or my server, and I just let it run and forget about it until later.
I'm more than satisfied with the improvement in extraction speed, which I'll admit is important to me.
The speed of encoding doesn't really bother me, I end up doing a lot of it on my P4 or my server, and I just let it run and forget about it until later.
I'm more than satisfied with the improvement in extraction speed, which I'll admit is important to me.
Do you have ANY proof that Anand is PAID by Intel? That is a pretty serious accusation.
Bias? The games were tested at 1600x1200. The synthetic benches I don't pay much attention to, but nobody complained when AMD were winning those tests.
I'm mainly a gamer myself (with a little bit of audio encoding thrown in) so those benches are most relevant to *myself* personally.
Just wondering, what applications did you use to test, and what were the test systems used? And what were the stock and overclocked speeds you used to come to your conclusion?
Could you please post what programs and settings you've used to benchmark? I should be able to get access to my X2 that I sold and compare that to my current E6400.
People around here ain't idiots (well, most ain't, anyway
Proof enough yet?
The E6300 isn't even maxed out btw, it's running at 2.94GHz at stock voltage because the 975X mobo is at its FSB limit, but the more popular (and cheaper) P965 boards generally have a higher FSB ceiling. A fully overclocked E6300 would open up an even bigger can of whoopass on the competition: (maxed E6300 @ 3.36GHz) http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014
PS. I'll probably be called an Intel fanb0y for posting all these benchmarks. Bring on the flames! /dons flameproof suit
Talk about "owned".
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Your simple fact is also very misleading. I would suggest to everyone reading this to just ignore, the 7% figure and 15% figure this person listed and go by overall averages until he explains what settings and programs he is using. Without the experimental parameters your figures are worthless.
There is also no evidence of anyone being PAID on the hardware sites, all the results of the major hardware sites correlate, FiringSquad, TechReport, Anandtech, HotHardware,
I don't know why we are all bickering about the benches, we all know they don't mean anything. I don't trust any bench but the ones I run: my production apps on the real hardware with the settings I actually use. I don't make any guesses about which chip is faster for me, I know which chips is faster for me because I actually try it out. To be fair, I usually assume linear performance deltas for clockspeed changes within the same architecture, which is usually a reasonable thing to assume. Benchmarks are worthless, test it yourself.
----
Also, what's with the comparison of the E6300 and the X2 3800 in the benchmarks? Those chips are not priced very close at all. Go to newegg right now and look at the prices: $193 vs $135. The X2 3800 is right at 30% cheaper than the Core2. Now go back up and look at the benchmarks harpoon posted of these two chips. The X2 is not more than 30 slower except in one or two tests, most are more like 15%-25%. harpoon's own posts show the 3800 as a better value than E6300, with a better price/performace ratio. Buy what you want, but paying out the nose for the latest gear isn't for me. I'd rather hit the price/performance sweet-spot.
----
Also, what's with the comparison of the E6300 and the X2 3800 in the benchmarks? Those chips are not priced very close at all. Go to newegg right now and look at the prices: $193 vs $135. The X2 3800 is right at 30% cheaper than the Core2. Now go back up and look at the benchmarks harpoon posted of these two chips. The X2 is not more than 30 slower except in one or two tests, most are more like 15%-25%. harpoon's own posts show the 3800 as a better value than E6300, with a better price/performace ratio. Buy what you want, but paying out the nose for the latest gear isn't for me. I'd rather hit the price/performance sweet-spot.
InternalStorm
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 137
For that little bit of price difference, you can't say that the X2 is the one to get.
You can overclock the E6300 way past 3GHz, and that will PWN anything AMD has to offer that's reasonably affordable. Not to mention run at still quite low volts and heat.
The X2's are horrible overclockers, and take a lot of volts to get a marginal gain in clock speed.
You can overclock the E6300 way past 3GHz, and that will PWN anything AMD has to offer that's reasonably affordable. Not to mention run at still quite low volts and heat.
The X2's are horrible overclockers, and take a lot of volts to get a marginal gain in clock speed.
I'll admit that the Core 2 Duo is hands down faster.
But I just looked at your sig (to the OP). You'll need a new mainboard, new DDR2 RAM, and the CPU, and possibly a heatsink/fan if you're not going to go OEM. I'd find it hard to justify, unless the work you earn your keep with is done on that system.
I looked at that option this December. I've had lots of freelance work lately (my job pays the mortgage and bills, my freelance work pays for the hobbies), and I thought I could swing it, selling my board, cpu (an X2 3800+), Swiftech cooler, and OCZ 2GB kit.
And then an Athlon X2 4800+ came up for sale locally, at a price Newegg couldn't touch. I bought that, and sold the 3800+. The amount of money to do the switch to Core2, and the hassle (I have my system just the way I like it right now, I've been really happy with my current mainboard) of totally ripping the OS off and starting from scratch; it didn't make sense to me. Core2 prices look like they'll drop this summer (probably earlier), which will be good. If DDR2 prices drop, then I'll look at it as well, meanwhile, there's nothing I can't do with the system in my sig. There really wasn't anything I couldn't do (but do slightly slower) with the X2 3800+, but the deal I got was too good to pass up.
P.S. If your primary use is gaming, you'll get far more out of a video card upgrade than you will a CPU/RAM/mainboard switch.
But I just looked at your sig (to the OP). You'll need a new mainboard, new DDR2 RAM, and the CPU, and possibly a heatsink/fan if you're not going to go OEM. I'd find it hard to justify, unless the work you earn your keep with is done on that system.
I looked at that option this December. I've had lots of freelance work lately (my job pays the mortgage and bills, my freelance work pays for the hobbies), and I thought I could swing it, selling my board, cpu (an X2 3800+), Swiftech cooler, and OCZ 2GB kit.
And then an Athlon X2 4800+ came up for sale locally, at a price Newegg couldn't touch. I bought that, and sold the 3800+. The amount of money to do the switch to Core2, and the hassle (I have my system just the way I like it right now, I've been really happy with my current mainboard) of totally ripping the OS off and starting from scratch; it didn't make sense to me. Core2 prices look like they'll drop this summer (probably earlier), which will be good. If DDR2 prices drop, then I'll look at it as well, meanwhile, there's nothing I can't do with the system in my sig. There really wasn't anything I couldn't do (but do slightly slower) with the X2 3800+, but the deal I got was too good to pass up.
P.S. If your primary use is gaming, you'll get far more out of a video card upgrade than you will a CPU/RAM/mainboard switch.
Benchmarks mean a great deal. Well, real world benchmarks mean something. I do a lot of encoding and encoding benchmarks online provide me with an opportunity to examine how each chip might perform. I do use WME, so that base is covered. Actually, I use many of the common encoders and Core 2 has proven itself to be an encoding machine. Clearly, online benchmarks benefited me. I also sometimes game so the gaming benchmarks provide me with some indication as to how these chips perform. I typically play flight simulators (really does help getting my private's license), and benchmarks have shown that the Core 2 performs wonderfully. I found this information online. I fail to see how the online benchmarks are so "worthess" as I see them as quite a useful resource.
If you don't trust them for whatever reason (conspiracy theories are often adored by !!!!!!s), that's fine. But please, post what programs you are using and settings used. Someone might like to independently verify your results as has been done over and over to the review sites. Let's see how you fare under the same scrutiny.
Price/performance sweet spot can mean many different things. There's a sweet spot in budget, enthusiast, and performance. These areas can be defined by cost. Otherwise, the real sweet spot in performance would not be the 3800+, it would be a 3000+ venice which costs $50 (albeit OEM). A 3000+ at 2 GHz will have greater than 50% of the performance of the 3800+ (assuming most programs won't get 100% improvement when moving from one core to two) yet costs less than half the price. You see, you can play this game all day. The real question is, what has the best price/performance ratio at the price you are willing to pay. If you can afford the E6300, that's what you should get. If $150 is your budget, then the 3800+ is for you. It's all about price point and once you get to the cost of the E6300, then the Core 2 is the winner.
spectrumbx
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,647
Add to that lower power usage for the conroe (lower TCO).
getSIDEWAYS
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 46
i think its time for a AMD x2 vs C2D bench mark test so we can compare systems, iknow c2d will win but i wanna see how far behind we are at stock speeds and OC speeds
freeloader1969
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,238
Having just switched from an AMD X2-4600 (oc'd to 2.8ghz), I can tell you that the C2D system is much faster. I mainly use my rig for video/audio encoding and the difference in encoding times is about 30%. I currently run my C2D at 3.15ghz on stock voltage.
As for games, I don't notice a difference. I mean once you pass 60fps with full eye candy, you could be playing on an Atari ST for all I care; you won't notice the difference.
For me, it was worth it.
As for games, I don't notice a difference. I mean once you pass 60fps with full eye candy, you could be playing on an Atari ST for all I care; you won't notice the difference.
For me, it was worth it.
Excellent post. I agree totally.
Visaris, when did I mention price/performance? I'm not sure why you're changing the subject here, this topic is not about price/performance of C2D vs X2, it's about outright performance between the two platforms once overclocked.
The OP asked for either a confirmation or a rebuttal as to whether an overclocked X2 is really that much slower than an overclocked C2D. I provided the data. Simple as that.
That Xbitlabs article is actually very kind to the X2 because generally most 3800+s will not reach 3GHz, they tend to average about 2.7 - 2.8GHz from what I've seen. Most E6300s (with the right mobo and RAM) will overclock well above 3GHz, around 3.2 - 3.5GHz generally.
In fact, with the imminent release of the E4300, the gap in performance will widen even further. This is an overclockers dream chip, its $20 cheaper than the E6300, and with the 9x multiplier it makes for easy overclocking to very high clockspeeds on the cheap.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e4300_5.html
I sometimes wish there was a neutral 'general' CPU forum to discuss these topics in an intelligent manner. Discussing these issues in the AMD (or Intel for that matter) forum will always lead to biased POV from the respective 'camp'. I bet if this topic was posted in the Intel forum there would be many comments of 'LOL Intel 0wnz AMD by 50% look at my SuperPi scores'... or something of that nature.
The best price/performace ratio is infinite. Pick up an old PIII or K6II for free from a friend who long ago upgraded and has junk in the closet. Won't be good for a whole lot, but you can't beat that ratio. Just as top performance is not the only concern, price/performance isn't the only one either. Personally, I would not pick up anything less than a E6300 or a X2 3800. Others might be fine with less, but a think those two chips form a pretty good minimum for me.
----
Sorry for taking things off topic, I didn't intend to (as I hate it when others take my threads off topic). However, in a thread designed to compare C2 and K8 I don't think talking about chips from the two families is off topic much, if at all, esspecially when I'm commenting on benchmarks of the chips posted earlier in the thread.
----
OP,
As I'm sure others have said, this really comes down to your platform more than the CPU alone. (from sig) You have RAM and a MB. IMHO, the price you would pay for new RAM, MB, and CPU really takes the appeal out of C2. I don't think the switch is worth it.
If you are building a new system, C2 probably makes sense for you. The only area where K8 will dominate is non-SSE FP code (x87), and even then, only in a few apps. Most desktop users would probably prefer a C2.
----
As for benchmarks, they don't test anything I use, ever. I don't game much, and the games I play all max on my current hardware as they are older games (CS 1.5, DII, NWN, etc) so I don't care about the benches for them. I don't encode much, and I certainly don't use synthetic benchmarks in my work. The only bench that might be useful is the compile time benchmarks, but, to be honest, this is only a minor concern.
Someone asked what apps I am interested in. I'm interested in the apps I write. I write evolutionary biology simulations looking at the causes and effects of speciation. My code is heavily threaded as well as NUMA and 64-bit optimized. It also makes heavy use of FP (x87) because SSE is slower for exp() calls (our custom exp() implementation, the one in glibc and microsoft's libraries suck btw) which make up a large portion of the computation time. As it just so happens, NUMA, 64-bit, and x87 FP are K8's strong points. K8 is faster for the apps I actually need to be fast. Feel free to read my papers and code here: ar.pdf mi.pdf code.
Core2 may be the better choice for 95% of the people out there. It may be faster for most people, but I recommend you test things out yourself. If I went by the benches out there, I would have picked up a number of chips that perform worse for me.
Ask me why I'm an AMD f.a.n or why I don't buy into the Core2 hype and I'll tell you it is because C2 is slower. Not slower for everything, not even slower for most things, just slower for the apps that matter to me, right now. Flame all you want, but it's true.
----
Sorry for taking things off topic, I didn't intend to (as I hate it when others take my threads off topic). However, in a thread designed to compare C2 and K8 I don't think talking about chips from the two families is off topic much, if at all, esspecially when I'm commenting on benchmarks of the chips posted earlier in the thread.
----
OP,
As I'm sure others have said, this really comes down to your platform more than the CPU alone. (from sig) You have RAM and a MB. IMHO, the price you would pay for new RAM, MB, and CPU really takes the appeal out of C2. I don't think the switch is worth it.
If you are building a new system, C2 probably makes sense for you. The only area where K8 will dominate is non-SSE FP code (x87), and even then, only in a few apps. Most desktop users would probably prefer a C2.
----
As for benchmarks, they don't test anything I use, ever. I don't game much, and the games I play all max on my current hardware as they are older games (CS 1.5, DII, NWN, etc) so I don't care about the benches for them. I don't encode much, and I certainly don't use synthetic benchmarks in my work. The only bench that might be useful is the compile time benchmarks, but, to be honest, this is only a minor concern.
Someone asked what apps I am interested in. I'm interested in the apps I write. I write evolutionary biology simulations looking at the causes and effects of speciation. My code is heavily threaded as well as NUMA and 64-bit optimized. It also makes heavy use of FP (x87) because SSE is slower for exp() calls (our custom exp() implementation, the one in glibc and microsoft's libraries suck btw) which make up a large portion of the computation time. As it just so happens, NUMA, 64-bit, and x87 FP are K8's strong points. K8 is faster for the apps I actually need to be fast. Feel free to read my papers and code here: ar.pdf mi.pdf code.
Core2 may be the better choice for 95% of the people out there. It may be faster for most people, but I recommend you test things out yourself. If I went by the benches out there, I would have picked up a number of chips that perform worse for me.
Ask me why I'm an AMD f.a.n or why I don't buy into the Core2 hype and I'll tell you it is because C2 is slower. Not slower for everything, not even slower for most things, just slower for the apps that matter to me, right now. Flame all you want, but it's true.
D
Deleted member 133315
Guest
well, this is all I have to say, my buddy has a 6600 with 2 gig of ram and a 7600 vid card, and we did tests and guess what, my 4800 walked all over his 6600 in most of the tests, so I would say that c2d isnt all that its cracked upto be.
they are good cpu's, but they dont have this magical powers that everyone seems to think they have, fuk, i even beat someone from here doing a photochop test with a c2d, so if my coming up for 2 year old 4800cpu can do that against the latest and greatest from intel, then whats all the fuss about c2d being the uber leetest of cpu's ???
I just dont get it.
I will say this tho, for the price of the middle of the road c2d, for that they are extremely good cpu's, as my 4800 cost £1000 a 6600 is less than half of that and can beat the 4800 in a good rig, so they are very much worth their value, but as shown, a socket 939 4800 in an excellent rig can give c2d chips a good fight and that is without a shadow of a doubt.
I would still like to own a c2d rig, but this one will do me til the end of this year til amd has atleast something good on the table so that I can actually pick from 2 companies asto whos is best, atm their is no question that if you are buying/building a pc, then it has to be intel.
they are good cpu's, but they dont have this magical powers that everyone seems to think they have, fuk, i even beat someone from here doing a photochop test with a c2d, so if my coming up for 2 year old 4800cpu can do that against the latest and greatest from intel, then whats all the fuss about c2d being the uber leetest of cpu's ???
I just dont get it.
I will say this tho, for the price of the middle of the road c2d, for that they are extremely good cpu's, as my 4800 cost £1000 a 6600 is less than half of that and can beat the 4800 in a good rig, so they are very much worth their value, but as shown, a socket 939 4800 in an excellent rig can give c2d chips a good fight and that is without a shadow of a doubt.
I would still like to own a c2d rig, but this one will do me til the end of this year til amd has atleast something good on the table so that I can actually pick from 2 companies asto whos is best, atm their is no question that if you are buying/building a pc, then it has to be intel.
The E6300 isn't even maxed out btw, it's running at 2.94GHz at stock voltage because the 975X mobo is at its FSB limit, but the more popular (and cheaper) P965 boards generally have a higher FSB ceiling. A fully overclocked E6300 would open up an even bigger can of whoopass on the competition: (maxed E6300 @ 3.36GHz) http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=2&id=2014
PS. I'll probably be called an Intel fanb0y for posting all these benchmarks. Bring on the flames! /dons flameproof suit
Actually, Kyle and I have both had Core 2 Duo E6300's to 3.51GHz. You just need a 500MHz FSB capable board and the rest is relatively easy. Let's also remember that Core 2 Duo's are generally cheaper, run a little cooler and require slightly less power.
We don't know the complete details of each system, but the benchmarks and proof are out there. My E6300 at 2.8GHz walked all over my dual Opteron 254 (Dual 2.8GHz single core Opterons) system in most tests. Same video, same drives, same PSU.
Gaming the E6300 won everytime. It's well known by nearly every enthusiast that a properly configured and comparable E6600 is faster than the FX-62 (Which is faster than your 4800+ at stock speeds). The E6400 isn't that far behind and the FX-62 either. So the middle of the road Core 2 Duo's outrun the AMD's pretty easily. In some cases the difference is minor and in some cases the AMD CPUs will win individual tests as you might imagine. The Core 2 Duo distances itself further from the AMDs in the E6700 and X6800 models. Additionally, the Core 2 Duo's shine in overclocking situations. Most all of them can reach at least 2.8GHz, which exceeds the stock speeds of the E6700 which AMD can't touch right now. Many lower end E6300 and E6400 CPUs can reach 3.2GHz or more, and many the E6600 and up CPUs can reach 3.2GHz and beyond with even greater ease due to the higher multiplier. There is alot of overclocking headroom in these CPUs and right now, AMD really can't touch them.
Let's also not forget that the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is the only desktop level quad core CPU on the market. Also remember that the only competition from AMD still loses badly in the gaming benchmarks and consumes almost 50% more power doing so. (Speaking of the 4x4,. Quad Father or whatever.)
Does this mean that AMD automatically sucks? Of course not. Does it mean that the increases in performance justify a new motherboard, CPU and possibly new ram? No, of course not. In gaming anyway, the video card is far more important, and the real world bennefits of Core 2 Duo vs. a high end AM2 or even Socket 939 setup aren't generally worth it.
Were those tests games? If so it sounds like your $500+ 8800GTX just outperformed your friend's $100-150 7600 series card.
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
Ha, I was gonna say the same thing!
On topic, at home I've tested and my benchmarking shows my E6400 @ stock to beat my 4400+ @ stock. Both of my CPU's max out low, but at overclocked settings, my E6400 @ 2.6Ghz is even faster then my 4400+ @ 2.4Ghz. When playing games on both systems, they both "feel" about the same (both were tested with the same 7900GT video card).
Visaris, good points.
I think you would agree that your personal use borders somewhat on the 'niche' market when compared to say, most desktop users or even enthusiasts for that matter. If AMD architecture is better suited for your uses, good for you, then the choice is easy.
However, in regards to 'test things first yourself' approach, that would imply you would have to BUY C2D and set it up to compare in the first place! Not very practical..
That is where reviews and benchmarks come in handy.
I think you would agree that your personal use borders somewhat on the 'niche' market when compared to say, most desktop users or even enthusiasts for that matter. If AMD architecture is better suited for your uses, good for you, then the choice is easy.
However, in regards to 'test things first yourself' approach, that would imply you would have to BUY C2D and set it up to compare in the first place! Not very practical..
That is where reviews and benchmarks come in handy.
Your software simply isn't designed to utilize Core 2 Duo properly. This doesn't change the fact that for 99% of the people out there, Core 2 Duo is the superior product at this time.
D
Deleted member 133315
Guest
I aint disputing the fact that c2d is the superior chip, by all means its foolish to even think that it is not, but and i say but, you put a c2d in a crap rig and only have the c2d as the showpiece, then it is very very possible for amd to come on top,
example, my rig, versus my buddys, he had 2 gig of slow as fuk memory a 6600 a 7600 and a 7200 hdd.
compare that with my 4800, 2-2-2-5 ram 10'000rpm 36 gig raptor and it was freshly formatted at my end, give or take a week or so.
obviously my vid card pwns his, but i have a feeling that if i put in one of my 78s the test would still come out in my favour ?
also a photoshop test thread in this forum, i beat a 6600 who had only 1 gig of ram, and this was before I got my 88, so as shown it is possible for a leet amd rig to get the better of a not so good ( although the c2d are outstanding cpus) rig in total.
ok you may say the test wasnt fair, but thats my point, a magic amd rig can beat the latest and greatest if the cpu isnt allowed to perform to its potential in a rig that holds it back.
so just because ppl have c2d, it doesnt automatically make them able to own every single amd rig out their, sure the potential is their, but the majority of c2d's are in rigs that are less than worthy for them thus depreaciating their performance by a good bit.
thats my point, all these c2d owners who think that because they have a c2d, they assume that they can beat every single amd rig, which is wrong.
Now, you put the best amd chip against the best intel chip, both in magic setups, and their is no doubt who will be the winner.
But as my buddy found out after much bragging that his newely acquired 6600 beat the shit out of my rig solely as he had c2d, then he got a nice cup of STFU to drink that night and hasnt muttered a word since.
EDIT:
Just to add, their was no overclocking done at either end. his would win in the oc stakes as mine is lucky if it can get an extra 400mhz from it, so both rigs were stock when we were messing about.
example, my rig, versus my buddys, he had 2 gig of slow as fuk memory a 6600 a 7600 and a 7200 hdd.
compare that with my 4800, 2-2-2-5 ram 10'000rpm 36 gig raptor and it was freshly formatted at my end, give or take a week or so.
obviously my vid card pwns his, but i have a feeling that if i put in one of my 78s the test would still come out in my favour ?
also a photoshop test thread in this forum, i beat a 6600 who had only 1 gig of ram, and this was before I got my 88, so as shown it is possible for a leet amd rig to get the better of a not so good ( although the c2d are outstanding cpus) rig in total.
ok you may say the test wasnt fair, but thats my point, a magic amd rig can beat the latest and greatest if the cpu isnt allowed to perform to its potential in a rig that holds it back.
so just because ppl have c2d, it doesnt automatically make them able to own every single amd rig out their, sure the potential is their, but the majority of c2d's are in rigs that are less than worthy for them thus depreaciating their performance by a good bit.
thats my point, all these c2d owners who think that because they have a c2d, they assume that they can beat every single amd rig, which is wrong.
Now, you put the best amd chip against the best intel chip, both in magic setups, and their is no doubt who will be the winner.
But as my buddy found out after much bragging that his newely acquired 6600 beat the shit out of my rig solely as he had c2d, then he got a nice cup of STFU to drink that night and hasnt muttered a word since.
EDIT:
Just to add, their was no overclocking done at either end. his would win in the oc stakes as mine is lucky if it can get an extra 400mhz from it, so both rigs were stock when we were messing about.
You do realise comparisons are done on an 'apples to apples' basis, right?
Your post makes very little sense - so your friend is a n00b and can't set up his hardware correctly - how does that make X2 any more competitive with a C2D?
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
As J3ph_42 pointed out, your video card owns your buddies video card, that's the major point of the test you had. You're right that just having the latest and greatest CPU is not going to mean your rig is bad ass, but then no one but a n00b would think so anyway. The C2D is a superior CPU to your AMD CPU, but not nearly as much as your video card is superior to his. Run some benchies that test just the CPU and I think you'll find things a bit different...
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
I think what he meant is eventhough C2D is better than the X2, it doesn't mean that the X2 is bad. If someone already has a X2, he would probably gain more performance in games with the same amount of money if he upgrades other hardwares like GPU and RAM than changing the whole mobo, ram, cpu to a C2D and keeping the old GPU. I already have a dual core S939 system and I don't think that I need to upgrade to C2D now but if someone wants to build a new rig, he would be a fool if he doesn't buy a C2D, I don't think there is any new similiar priced AMD system that can beat a C2D system.
D
Deleted member 133315
Guest
Run some benchies that test just the CPU and I think you'll find things a bit different...
Umm, why run benchmarks when we already know that c2d is better ? benchmarks are shit, real world performance is what I like to test for, benchmarks only tell you a gay number that you can boast about on the net.
Also, it wasnt just games we tested, you all seem to be missing the PHOTOCHOP test, that isnt a game.
Basically although my buddy has a c2d rig, it isnt in the best setting, i.e his rig isnt that great apart from his cpu and he isnt getting the power out of it that he should be, but he isnt a nub but he somehow thought that just cuz he had c2d and i had amd, that his rig would change overnight into a monster that would devour any and all amd cpus out there. Also as i said earlier, the chances are if i took out the 88 and put in a 78 it would probably still show in my favour against his rig.
But anyhow, we tested a shitload of stuff, and it wasnt just games we tested and he was surprised that my cpu/rig was beating crap out of his at times, although his did win somethings.
As for your comment on only a noob would think that anyway, well dude you'd be surprised how many people seem to think that with a c2d injection into their/any old rig that it makes every single amd rig obsolete overnight.
nub teenagers and nub twenty somethings are all over this forum and every other tech forum and they speak a pile of shit and are in absolute awe of c2d.
Btw, I am glad that you were in my house when we were messing about so that you could see that games were the "major point" of the test, when infact only 3 games were tried, as we only had 3 games on each pc that was the same.
The rest of the testing was real world performance testing, not benchmarks, it was makin rar files, see how long it took to open programs, unraring 4 gig dvds, photoshop, 3 games, running multiple instances of programs and just all round general use of the pc. my raptor and my ram helped me out a great deal no doubt and probably and I cannot be 100% sure of this, but probably also cuz I had formatted the previous week and I had a clean os, all nicely trimmed down and optomised to my liking, now what my buddys os was like I cant really say, he may of had spyware/viri in it for all I know.
But this is what I say, if anyone has a highend amd rig, then their is no real need to go c2d at the moment, as their isnt that much of a jump in speed to warrant buying a whole new rig.
D
Deleted member 133315
Guest
Your post makes very little sense - so your friend is a n00b and can't set up his hardware correctly - how does that make X2 any more competitive with a C2D?
90% of pc's sold and pc's built are not setup properly/optomised to get the best out of any given hardware whether it be amd or intel.
Nobody is saying that its competitive, we all know c2d is the cpu to buy.
Its just that in a lot of situations the c2d will be held back by the pc that its in whether it was bought like that or built like that and it wont be very much faster (if at all in some pc's) than a top end amd pc, but the person who owns the c2d rig will instantly think that because its c2d that it will beat any amd rig out their, which simply isnt the case, theoretically it can but its not just a cpu that makes a pc good/fast, all the other components must be taken into account.
the vast majority of the world isnt enthusiats like a lot of ppl here are, I wont say all of the people here as that simply isnt true, alot of them would like to think of themselves as enthusiasts but are more than likely just weekenders, anyway the vast majority of people who will buy c2d will buy it after being told from friends and salesmen that c2d kills every single amd pc out their, thus when they buy/build they will instantly think that their pc is better/faster than any amd rig solely cuz their has been so much hype about what c2d can do.
The people who know better are in the minority. Millions of c2d rigs have probably been sold since lauch and I can bet that the vast majority of ppl who bought one will think their pc being intel c2d is soo much better than amd that its the equivelant of colour tv versus black and white.
The simple fact of the matter is that anyone who knows something, at this point, can invest about 600 dollars and take a "measly" 186 dollar C2D e6300 and clock it up over 3 Ghz..............blazing performance for the price. (Gigabyte 965P-DS3,2GB value RAM, and the e6300) adding a video card of your choice.
You simply cant get thatkind of performance out of an AMD chip at present, plain and simple......without a great deal of hassle and OC knowlege. I am a stout AMD user and I simply could not ignore the value in these C2D chips........I scrapped both my AMD rigs in favor of the C2D......in my humble opinion it was just a better deal at the present and seems to be taking me into the future a deal farther and more practically than the current AMD lineup.
You simply cant get thatkind of performance out of an AMD chip at present, plain and simple......without a great deal of hassle and OC knowlege. I am a stout AMD user and I simply could not ignore the value in these C2D chips........I scrapped both my AMD rigs in favor of the C2D......in my humble opinion it was just a better deal at the present and seems to be taking me into the future a deal farther and more practically than the current AMD lineup.
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
Just because there are tons of n00bs here (and everywhere) doesn't change anything. If anyone thinks changing their processor is going to result in a dramatic improvement when the rest of their system sucks, they don't know computers as well as they'd like to think. The computer, like anything, is held back by it's weakest link (slowest part). Your friend has a seriously crippled computer because he's using parts to back up his E6600 that are not as good as they could be. Faster RAM, a faster video card and perhaps a faster hard drive would make a big difference. You don't have to get all shitty, I'm actually agreeing with part of what you say. That is, you can't drop a "superior" CPU in with inferior parts and expect a superior system. It just doesn't work that way. All the parts in a PC have to be comparable to really get the most of the performance of the CPU. That's why my main rig at home is still a 4400+. My LAN party box had a P4 3.2Ghz CPU and an old i875 mobo. I sold those parts and bought my P5B Deluxe, DDR2 RAM and E6400 to upgrade that system. The upgrade made a difference, but not a huge one, mostly because the old system did just fine at 1280x1024. To see the real improvement the upgrade made, I'd have to be running a bigger WS monitor running my games at a higher resolution. Then I'd be able to see where the new parts offer much better performance then my old parts. More then anything, I wanted to go C2D in my LAN party box, just to prove that to myself. I didn't see anything that made me want to move the C2D parts into my main system. Matter of fact, my next upgrade will probably be the video card and monitor, which will give me a lot more of a performance increase then upgrading the CPU...
wtburnette
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,580
I have to say I disagree with you about the overclocking. Yes, a majority of C2D chips can OC to over 3Ghz, but not all. I have followed all the guides, messed with every setting, added better cooling and have a lot of overclocking experience and my E6400 will only go to 2.6Ghz with stability. Every chip is different. People just need to be realistic with their expectations. At 2.6Ghz, the CPU still performs very well, it just won't go any higher.