Difference between AMD and Intel

[Chris_PC]

Im going to be building a new system soon, Im aware that the Core 2 duo is the best bang for the buck compared to the X2 series. I have only had experience with the 4400+ and other AMDs, and am considering making this buod a Core 2 duo, so would like to know how much difference will there be between the 2? As far as Im aware there wont be much at all but i just want to make sure.

PS: this computer will not be overclocked as it is for a relative.

Thanks!

 

[b1gapl]

There is a big difference between the C2Ds and the X2 series. The C2Ds own. Check the benchmarks:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

 

[magouster]

A bit of a vague answer b!gapl. The X2 4400 beats the e6300 when not overclocked, so to say the C2D owns AMD is incorrect. Obviously the more expensive C2Ds DO beat most AMD CPUs at the moment, so I would reccomend anybody get one if they can afford them.

 

[The General]

A bit of a vague answer b!gapl. The X2 4400 beats the e6300 when not overclocked, so to say the C2D owns AMD is incorrect. Obviously the more expensive C2Ds DO beat most AMD CPUs at the moment, so I would reccomend anybody get one if they can afford them.

No it doesn't, the E6300 even beats a 4600+ in some cases.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=8


And when overclocking, the E6300 beats the FX-62:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802

 

[Chris_PC]

I wasnt really on about performance to be honest, more about the differences in setting up and AMD compared to an Intel.

 

[hitchface]

The problem here is that you are comparing AMDs X2 line with Intel's Cor 2 Duo, when X2 was meant as a direct competitor the Pentium D series. AMDs solution to Core 2 Duo comes out in 2007, and I bet Intel is gonna get a whoopin'. Price performance sides with AMD for sure. I run an X2 4200+ right now, and the thing screams past the lower Core 2 Duo machines out there, with less heat and less power consumption.

 

[Ste]

http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=130043&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=130324&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=130756&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=123957&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=129484&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=129333&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=128994&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=128247&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=128117&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=128046&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=127935&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel
http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?threadid=127649&highlight=AMD+Vs+Intel

Point: TF Has a search Feature, Your question has been asked in varying formats and answered in varying formats. That was just the first 3 or 4 pages of the search result.

as to your second question, theres no difference in settings them up. Other than the Fact that your need DDR2 for the C2D and not for a socket 939.

 

[Ronnie]

The problem here is that you are comparing AMDs X2 line with Intel's Cor 2 Duo, when X2 was meant as a direct competitor the Pentium D series. AMDs solution to Core 2 Duo comes out in 2007, and I bet Intel is gonna get a whoopin'. Price performance sides with AMD for sure. I run an X2 4200+ right now, and the thing screams past the lower Core 2 Duo machines out there, with less heat and less power consumption.

for the price you payed for your rig i could build a core 2 system using the e6300 that would slay your easily.

even the lowest core 2 kills amd and its a lot cheaper then most amds.

and amd using more power and heat so your wrong there
one of the great features of the core 2 was the less power consumption and heat

 

[hitchface]

AMD uses cool n quiet, which ramps up the power when needed, whereas Intel uses something that basically runs the chip full blast until it nearly self destructs. At least thats what they used in the Pentium Ds, I don't know about the Core 2 Duo.

Either way, my system was dirt cheap, and the temps are constantly about 25 for the CPU and 15 in the case. My mom got a Pentium D that ran more than twice that on a cold day.

I'm not saying that AMD flat out tooled Intel in the dual core area, because that's not true. Price performance ratios favour AMD though, all taken into account.

AMDs X2 4800+ still has twice the FSB that the x6800 does, and Intel's hypertransport isn't even enabled on it, which is a huge part of Intel's processing power. I'd rather pay 400-500 dollars less and get a chip that consumes far less power. For those who don't have a budget, sure, go with Intel's stuff, but for the guy who can't afford to blow a thousand bucks on a processor, AMD offers the best stuff.

 

[Sora]

You lose fanboy.

Heres a line taken out of AnandTech review of C2D vs AMD

In fact, in a complete turn around from what we've seen in the past, the highest end Core 2 processor is actually the most efficient (performance per Watt) processor in the lineup for WME9. This time, those who take the plunge on a high priced processor will not be stuck with brute force and a huge electric bill.

Heres a page in the article about how the FSB is lower

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6

Clearly shows that the performance increase is minimal.

Now heres there part where I blow up your little Fanboy thoughts of at the lower-end AMD being more cost efficient.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=8

Now lets take a look at Inteles E6300 vs the 4200 x2
They both range about $180

Take a look at the Overall General SYSmark

At stock speeds the E6300 beats the 4200 x2 in every category on that page. A few things are just by a few points while others the E6300 beats the FX-62. Clearly on that page The C2D E6300 would be a better choice for your $180 bucks.

Then you can take a look at wordbench where E6300 beats it only by one point. So even though Intel wins ill say well 1 point isnt much you can get a 4200 x2 if thats what you were going to use it for no big deal there.

Then the next page in that article shows general Performance Winstones.

In the top one E6300 gets beat by a few points, while in the next one its get beat by about 3 points. So if thats what you are going to use your computer for (Winstone 2004) by all means get an AMD, I mean i know thats what i want to be really fast, My Winstone 2004. LMAO

Next 2 pages you'll see the next few AMD seems to win by a few points every few times. So if thats exactly what your PC will be used for the most, Encoding and Rendering then buy the 4200 x2.

But now heres the big one. If your going to use your Computer for Gaming (as most on this site in the high-end section do) check the marks there.

You will see that in the majority of games Intel wins. Their E6300 is either about 2 points behind, or faster than the 5000 x2.

So you could say the E6300 slighly beats the 4200 x2 on average then. But since your a huge Fanboy and I doubt the becnhmarks are going to your head i'd say that your 4200 x2 is fine even though its a bit weaker.

Now heres the killer though try to OC a 4200 x2 a bit and man you can reach what 4600 speeds?

Now OC the E6300 and you can reach speeds of 3.6ghz

Thats about a 100% increase in frequency while the AMD can get what about 25% at most?

Even a slight OC to about 2.4 in tests have already priven that thae E6300 at 2.4 will beat the FX-62 in most tests.

Just take your fanby self away and look at the factsa. For now Intel is King