CPU's

[freestyler105]

I'm planning on building a PC in the upcoming months, and I have some kind of idea of what I want, but I am totally lost when it comes the the CPU. I know only some basic things about processors, so my question is :

Which CPU is going to perform better in gaming - the Core 2 Duo E6600 or an AMD Athlon 64 X2 of a similar price, say the 4800 or 5000+?

My purposes for the computer will primarily gaming, with a little iTunes, internet browsing, and AIM mixed in there.

I've heard only good things about the E6600 so far, and that's what I'm leaning towards right now.
Also, overclocking will be a factor, as I am planning on installing some kind of cooling into this system, but I won't be spending more than around $100 on that. This site says that they got the E6600 to 4 GHz. Is that really possible? As the article says, that's a 67% overclock, which is pretty amazing.

 

[D-Lew]

The intel is a better bet for the price. AMD's are good but the Core 2 Duos seem to do better. Also, the C2D's overclock like beasts. I can get a 13% overclock on mine, aftermarket air cooling because of stability issues, I'm sure it could go higher, so the Intels could probably do 20% easy with a hood heatsink and fan combo.

 

[mammikoura]

the E6600 owns ANY amd currently on the market.

 

[dorfman]

personally i'd go with the AMD, because i like AMD better despite that intel's being a little better or faster needless to say... i just have a feeling the intel's aren't going to last as long as the AMD's because they are way overclocked.. thats just my two cents

 

[mammikoura]

i just have a feeling the intel's aren't going to last as long as the AMD's because they are way overclocked.. thats just my two cents

what do u mean by that?

 

[Reiyoku]

personally i'd go with the AMD, because i like AMD better despite that intel's being a little better or faster needless to say... i just have a feeling the intel's aren't going to last as long as the AMD's because they are way overclocked.. thats just my two cents

I don't know, as much as I'm with AMD than intell, I actually think the intels have been made for exsessive overclocking or to overclock it without reducing it's life expectency much....well I don't know haha, AMD'S have always been my favourite.

 

[dorfman]

what i mean is that when you overclock your processor its creates more stress on it.. and sure it may be fast as balls, but you all know computers, the more stress on it, the short the life span.... thats just what i am thinking, then again i could be completely wrong...

but something worth noticing: how it took them forever to get to the 1 GHZ processor, and how come they haven't gotten over like 3GHZ unless its really overclocked...i think there is something to be said about that.

 

[mammikoura]

what i mean is that when you overclock your processor its creates more stress on it.. and sure it may be fast as balls, but you all know computers, the more stress on it, the short the life span.... thats just what i am thinking, then again i could be completely wrong...

but something worth noticing: how it took them forever to get to the 1 GHZ processor, and how come they haven't gotten over like 3GHZ unless its really overclocked...i think there is something to be said about that.

yes overclocking does create more stress to the cpu. But u don't have to overclock. And if u are talking about the stock core clock speeds, the Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.6Ghz) has a lower clock speed than the amd FX-62 (2.8Ghz?) which is it's closest competitor.

edit: and to answer about the increase in clock speeds, 1st intel was trying just to increase and increase the clock speed to make faster processors. But it generated way too much heat so now they understood that and the core 2 duo's architecture does more calculations per clock cycle which results in better performance with lower clock speed. So as long as the architecture keeps getting better there really is no need to get gigantic clock speeds.

 

[dorfman]

which is my point precisely...

the Intel can be slower stock clock, so by overclocking it to be fast as balls would put more stress, and less stable
the AMD has a higher stock clock, you could overclock it less, which would be less stress, and more stable...

thus why i chose AMD...but i think over-clocking is going to catch up to us, from what i said b4 The more you over-clock the more stress= less life. Its kinda like running a motor on a car at 7900rpm (red lining it) all the time...sure it may not blow up right away, but give it time.

edit: to go along to what your edit was, i agree...for more pracitcal use, a gigiantic clock speed isn't needed... which controdicts what i just said... unless you want to overclock.
EDIT EDIT: aslo with the x2 processors, i think you can have a better system at a lower clock speed, because instead all of the load going to one processor its going to two, creating less stress because its evenly distributied between the processors... possibly you can over-clock more because you are creating more stress, but that stress its equally divided between two processors...

i've never been big on over-clocking though.

 

[mammikoura]

which is my point precisely...

the Intel can be slower stock clock, so by overclocking it to be fast as balls would put more stress, and less stable
the AMD has a higher stock clock, you could overclock it less, which would be less stress, and more stable...

Well true, but then again now we are talking about oc'ing the intel alot, and oc'ing the amd only a little. Now that would also mean that the increase in performance for the intel would be alot higher. What I'm trying to say is that the overclockability is only a good thing, u don't have to oc any more than u want to. But as long as the clock speeds are going to be the same the intel is going to be way faster.

also with the x2 processors, i think you can have a better system at a lower clock speed, because instead all of the load going to one processor its going to two, creating less stress because its evenly distributied between the processors... possibly you can over-clock more because you are creating more stress, but that stress its equally divided between two processors...

i've never been big on over-clocking though.

no. As I said the core 2 duo core is more effective, the E6600 quite clearly beating amd fx-62 which has 400mhz higher clock speed. So when the clock speeds are the same the intel is going to perform alot better. And the x2 is 1 processor. It just has 2 cores (aka dual core cpu). And also the core 2 duo cpu's are dual cores.