Processor confusion Intel Core 2's

[zwh02]

I've been looking around lately pre-planning a computer build for this summer. My target is a reasonable budget mid-ranged gaming rig. I like to play online multi players mainly, such as the Battlefield series games. I also do some photo, video and audio editing.

I'm having trouble figuring out which processor to set my hands on.

Also please excuse my idiotness as I've been out of the tech loop for a few years now. The last time I built a PC, my Pentium 4 2.8ghz northwood was top of the line....

Anyways-

At first I was set on AMD Athlon 64 x2's, since they're low priced with high processor speeds. For example the 6400+ clocked at 3.2ghz(windsor), dual core for around $150.

Then I've noticed a lot of favoring towards the Intel Core 2 line. But I see the similarly priced Core 2 processor (around $150) is only 2.2-2.4 ghz, dual core (allendale). Why?

To confuse me even more, an E6300 1.8ghz Core 2 due (conroe) is priced higher than the higher clock speed allendales.... Can someone explain to me the reason behind this.

Is there something I'm missing? Which is/are the quicker processors?

Also, what about the Pentium D processors?

Is there something different about the Core 2 processors that makes them quicker even with the slower core speeds?


I'm looking for a good processor under $200 that can keep up with near recent gaming. I notice a lot of newer games are stating they require 2.8ghz+ ???

Thanks for any help.

 

[Nitestick]

yes there is something different. the Core 2 processors use a different design that is faster than the previous Pentium 4 based processors (including Pentium D) and K8 (Athlon 64 based processors including the X2s) at the same frequency.

there are several main types of Core 2 processors, including Allendale, Conroe, Kentsfield, Yorkfield etc. in the Core 2 Duo range Conroe is better than Allendale. i don't have a great amount of experience with Allendale processors but i believe they are essentially the same as the two lower clocked Conroe processors (e6300/e6400) i.e. they have the same amount of cache and same design the only difference being price and the fact that the e6300/e6400 still have the same physical amount of cache as their older brothers (e6600 etc) but have half locked.

try to aim for a full fledged Conroe model if you can.

edit: in response to games stating a requirement of 2.8GHz+ this sort of marketing is only adding to confusion in people like yourself. as far as i can tell they mean "2.8GHz by the old measure". the old measure being the Pentium 4 (and Athlon Thunderbird which is roughly the same efficiency). in the good ol' days the P-Rating system used by AMD was based on the rough frequency equivalent if that processor where a Thunderbird i.e a 2800+ is how powerful an Athlon Thunderbird at 2.8GHz (roughly the same as a 2.8GHz P4) would be. now it's much harder to figure out requirements when they are stated like this with the lack of some sort of rating system to help.

 

[zedman3d]

Also, according to benchmarks, an Amd Athlon x2 6000 (3ghz) does not beat an Intel Core 2 Duo that is in the 2.2 - 2.4ghz range.

 

[Bongo]

For a home/office desktop, is it better to have a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad? I know at first it might sound like a dumb question, but if I am not mistaken I think I read somewhere that its better to go with a duo. Although I don't remember why, and I am not sure if that's even accurate.

 

[Twizted_3kgt]

For a home/office desktop, is it better to have a Core 2 Duo or a Core 2 Quad? I know at first it might sound like a dumb question, but if I am not mistaken I think I read somewhere that its better to go with a duo. Although I don't remember why, and I am not sure if that's even accurate.

Core2 Quad is better than Duo in all shapes, forms, and situations. It's 2 duo's together...which is better? 2 or 1? 2.

 

[900RR]

The Wolfdale 45nm Core2Duo's are just now coming out and you can get them right at or slightly under $200 for the E8400. It's 3.0Ghz 6MB cache and will smoke a Q6600 on games. For strictly games that is the way to go or even for just a majority of games and some photo/video editing. If you are doing mostly photo/video editing then you might consider a quad, but you are into more $ then as well. Newegg should be putting the E8400's up tomorrow or sometime this week at least.

Core2 Quad is better than Duo in all shapes, forms, and situations. It's 2 duo's together...which is better? 2 or 1? 2.

you're wrong, core2duo will beat a quad in games because there aren't any quad core optimized games yet, and the core2duo's run cooler and overclock higher. quads have a much lower FSB wall.

 

[Twizted_3kgt]

you're wrong, core2duo will beat a quad in games because there aren't any quad core optimized games yet, and the core2duo's run cooler and overclock higher. quads have a much lower FSB wall.

So what you're saying is a game optimized for dual-core wouldn't run exactly the same on a quad-core, except the quad core would be running at 50% capacity instead of 100% capacity as a dual-core would, thereby cooler? Is that what you're saying? lol. And there are games optimized for quad-core, have you heard of CRYSIS? Also, what benchmarks are you looking at?

I guess for those who can't equally compare things themselves, I should add "of equal die size" to my statement. QX9650 > Exxxx. I never said anything about cost effectiveness.

 

[maroon1]

Also, according to benchmarks, an Amd Athlon x2 6000 (3ghz) does not beat an Intel Core 2 Duo that is in the 2.2 - 2.4ghz range.

Actually, core 2 duo 2.4GHz does perform on par with 6000+, if not better

Just check the benchmarks for E6600
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/dualcore-roundup/charts/average.png

 

[maroon1]

i don't have a great amount of experience with Allendale processors but i believe they are essentially the same as the two lower clocked Conroe processors (e6300/e6400) i.e. they have the same amount of cache and same design the only difference being price and the fact that the e6300/e6400 still have the same physical amount of cache as their older brothers (e6600 etc) but have half locked.

Actually, not all e6300/e6400 are based on Conroe, some of them are based on Allendale

New Allendales ... E6300 SL9TA Step L2 06F2h 1.225V-1.325V ,Also New E6400 L2!! - XtremeSystems Forums

 

[Nagasama]

Actually, core 2 duo 2.4GHz does perform on par with 6000+, if not better

Just check the benchmarks for E6600
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/dualcore-roundup/charts/average.png

yepper, maroon1 is right... they will perform about on par at stock speeds. if and when you overclock the 6600 to 3+ghz, you will notice it pulling ahead by quite a margin in most cases. and in most cases, they will overclock to that speed (and then some) no problem.