Intel Vs AMD

Status
Not open for further replies.
1)exactly. At stock, the 6000+ actually does beat the E6600 in a lot of benchmarks. Overall, the E6600 is faster, but not by a lot.

yep, except you wont see those benchmarks posted by the benchmark posters. and you know who you are.

2)Now, to get something out of the way:
Yes, I am an AMD fan.
No, I don't care if your C2D is faster than my 6000+.

word UP.

oh and by the way i sure am GLAD my 3600 can beat the e2140 in serious sam! whew! i wasnt gonna buy it till i saw that! lol you guys and your benchmarks heh heh heh
 
Woot! AMD til the end, I am an amd fanboy since I ditched the P3 and went to athlon 64.. Now I have a 5600+ running at 3.0 ghz (could go higher but meh) and I can't wait for Phenom!!!
 
I'd say if you're happy with your AMD or Intel, and it does what you want it to do, the benchmarks don't matter.
 
Okay. I'll start off with the fact I had been an AMD fanboy for about three years. I built a dozen or so machines with AMD processors. In that time, I built one with an Intel processor. That said, when I put together my current game machine build (Dec 2006), the clear winner in price/performance was the Intel Core 2 duo.

What I've been reading seems to say that the AMD X2 6000+ is very close in speed to the Intel E6600. Depending on which article I read, AMD is either slightly ahead or behind the E6600. The % difference is very small either way. The Newegg.com price for the two seems to be $0.09 different. (AMD is $222.99 versus Intel's $222.90.) That said, I'd still buy the Intel right now simply because it's running cooler with less wattage.

AMD had been using 65nm technology for their processors, but the 6000+ is built on the older 90nm process. That related directly to higher power consumption. Their specs say it can use up to 125W. (The E6600 is rated at 65 W.) My belief is that AMD has left very little room for overclocking in that they are pretty much topping out what that design can do right out of the box. Even If I don't care to overclock (which I don't), I have to ask myself if I want to buy a piece of equipment that's burning like a furnace from day one? Even if I cool it properly, is it going to last?

I put my new Intel motherboard and CPU into the same case that my old Athlon 64 (3200+) had been in. It's using the same fans as before. I added a new graphics card (i.e., probably running hotter than the old one). What I saw is the case temperature dropped 10°C and CPU temperature dropped 13°C. That's a lot.

It's quite true that AMD's next offering may put it back on top (in my price point range - $200-$300 for a CPU). I'll be an AMD fanboy again when it happens. It's just not there right now.

Check out these articles:
Tom's Hardware: Which is the Best Mainstream CPU?,
Tom's Hardware: Does AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Have Any Kick Left?, and
Extreme Tech: AMD Goes to 3GHz: The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and see what you think.
 
I as well am an AMD fan, not necessarily because they have better products, but because AMD is the underdog. Intel also made a big no no in the form of when they were losing ground to AMD, they laid of 10,000 workers, and I think that's messed up, I wonder how many little boys missed out on a Wii.
 
A lot of you guys haven't been around long enough to remember Cyrix and Nextgen, but back when the Pentium came out in 1993-1994 there were 4 makers of x86 chips. Intel owned the universe but competition was on. and each group had different innovative designs. Next gen was bought by AMD, and they made the K-6 and cyrix was bought by Via tech and they came out with the mini-itx. not for major cpus its Intel and AMD. We need AMD here, not necessarily to show Intel up but to keep competition good. If we didn't have AMD we would probably still be using Pentium 3s right now. They make each other good. If AMD were to go under (very unlikely) or if Intel bought them out (i think the Germans have too much pride for that too) then its all over. We wouldn't see major price cuts or updates to hardware every few months like we have always enjoyed, because why would they need to? It costs far less and makes them much more money if they can set their own timetable and high prices. sounds sorta familiar huh *cough M$ cough cough*
 
My belief is that AMD has left very little room for overclocking in that they are pretty much topping out what that design can do right out of the box.
MY 6000+ can run 3dmark06 at 3.5GHZ

Even If I don't care to overclock (which I don't), I have to ask myself if I want to buy a piece of equipment that's burning like a furnace from day one?
My 6000+ runs at 21ºC at stock

Even if I cool it properly, is it going to last?
yes.

A lot of you guys haven't been around long enough to remember Cyrix and Nextgen, but back when the Pentium came out in 1993-1994 there were 4 makers of x86 chips. Intel owned the universe but competition was on. and each group had different innovative designs. Next gen was bought by AMD, and they made the K-6 and cyrix was bought by Via tech and they came out with the mini-itx. not for major cpus its Intel and AMD. We need AMD here, not necessarily to show Intel up but to keep competition good. If we didn't have AMD we would probably still be using Pentium 3s right now. They make each other good. If AMD were to go under (very unlikely) or if Intel bought them out (i think the Germans have too much pride for that too) then its all over. We wouldn't see major price cuts or updates to hardware every few months like we have always enjoyed, because why would they need to? It costs far less and makes them much more money if they can set their own timetable and high prices. sounds sorta familiar huh *cough M$ cough cough*
I think I remember Via-Cyrix was still selling CPU's in about 2005.
They were not performance processors. They were designed for very high power efficiency, and low heat, running at about 900MHZ maximum. This was when AMD and Intel also had dual cores, I think.
 
that is not a true comment, what hapend when c2d came out???
way over priced
amd cut prices
people still bought the over priced c2d wich had a performence increase over the amdx2
no one cares about price im sorry you can all claim you do but i bet 2thirds of the people here jumped on the c2d wagon before the first price drop wich came like 6 months laterif the amd chips truely are more powerfull people will buy them

No one cares about the price?

Uhh buddy, the reasons the C2D's were so sucessful was because of their price for their performance. You could get a 186 dollar CPU, which could overclock to the same speeds as a 1000 dollar CPU. It could handle anything you could throw at it.. just for 186..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom