Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2006, 06:01 AM   #21
Beta Member
 
St8Ez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337DuD3
Well, this is a very subjective thread you make. Reason is, it REALLY depends upon what you want to do.

If you want to multitask like no other, then the Intel Pentium D is what you want. For some reason it handles more application better, however, when I mean a lot of applications, I mean, A LOT of applications. If you want to do some gaming, then this is where AMD comes in.

If you want to have better processing in gaming, then get the AMD, in most benchmarks, which you can find at http://www.tomshardware.com the Athlon 64 X2 series processors generally take the cake. Although Intel does win sometimes, most of the time it's AMD. If you asked me, I'd say when it comes to sheer processing, AMD has it made. Intel is lacking in the memory controller area. Not to mention, their 'dual-cores' aren't techinically dual-cores at all. They're rather 'double-cores'. Because the two CPUs don't actually communicate with each other, instead, they communicate with each other via a Quad-Pumped front-side-bus.

This creates a bottleneck, well, a rather LARGE bottleneck. You see, the thing that makes AMD better in processing is it's ability to communicate with each CPU better, because they actually 'talk' to each other. Plus, they have a built in memory controller, which allows the CPU to communicate to the memory directly, as oppossed to Intel processors which I believe use the FSB once again.

If I was you, I would pick any Athlon 64 X2 series processor. However, if you're on a budget and you still want performance nearly identical to AMD, then get a Pentium D 9xx processor. Which ever you choose you'll be great;y happy with. Dual-Core processors are insanely fast, however, you don't need dual-cores just yet. Dual-Cores may seem like a much better option, however, they aren't full utilized just yet. Not to mention, Single Cores can compete with them extremly well in gaming applications. So, the choice is really preference.




good review so from what im understaing is that INTELS dual cores heat up to fast and AMD's heat up way less and are better for gaming them im probaly gonna go with the knew AMD's enven though the prices are in the hirgher range ile drop a litle more if its actually does perform to its price cant have my pc and 65 degress doing simple tasks imagine encoding a a movie and playin QUAKE 4 for a couple hours always been a intel guy but hearing more and more good things about AMD as times goes on espcially in the price and power deparment

yes Intels do heat up alot especailly NorthWoods and Prescotts but there made to with stand it but for how long its nice not haveing to worry about your prossecrs over heating all the time or buying a good cooling system to keep it at bay.......and they are pretty reliable prossecers but AMD's i hear are aslo but arent as strong from what i cant but come close and dont heat up as fast especially when you have prorgrams that suck the life out of it

whats this new thing with Quads i hear...... first HT (FAST) then DC (extreme and not yet being used to its full capabilites) and now QUADS WOW! makes DUAL CORES sounds like childs play
__________________

St8Ez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2006, 07:34 AM   #22
Beta Member
 
St8Ez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Now the choices which would you go for !?

TOP OF DUAL CORE PROCESSER FOOD CHAIN ( not including XEONS or OPTERONS)


Intel Pentium XE 840 3.20GHz / 2MB Cache / 800 FSB / Socket 775 / Dual-Core / Hyper-Threading / PRICE:
1,029.00

OR


AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 / 2MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939 / Hyper-Transport / Dual-Core / PRICE :1,066.00



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


FOR THE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK TOP OF THE LINE DUAL CORES PROCESSORS



Intel Pentium D 830 3.0GHz / 2MB Cache / 800 FSB / Socket 775 / Dual-Core / PRICE:289.99

OR



AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2.0GHz / 1MB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket 939 / Dual-Core (Manchester) /PRICE:329.99


now that your seen these prossecers which would make u take it home and make ur wallet or purse leak a little for it
__________________

St8Ez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2006, 01:51 PM   #23
Golden Master
 
alvino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,967
Send a message via AIM to alvino
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

I'd rather wait for Conroe. AM2 sounds interesting, but since AMD is venturing into completetly new for them, it'll be a while before everything is completely matured.
alvino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2006, 01:55 PM   #24
BSOD
 
JustinMcG67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,519
Send a message via AIM to JustinMcG67 Send a message via MSN to JustinMcG67 Send a message via Yahoo to JustinMcG67
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

If you're willing to spend $1,000 on a processor, then get the Athlon 64 FX-60.
JustinMcG67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 02:08 PM   #25
Baseband Member
 
SSE5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 48
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

My Prescott idles at about 40C and gets to about 54-55C at full load on stock hs/f with 2 other case fans.

Anyway - a rule of thumb for Intel dual-core processors is to buy a Presler. If you want more stable temps and excellent overclocking potential, Smithfield doesn't offer for quite a few reasons. It runs a great deal hotter thanks to the lack of a die shrink to 65nm and lacks some features. Also, not only do the Preslers have double the cache for each core, but the cache runs at the same latency as Smithfield's. (For those unfamiliar with the transition to 2MB of cache for Prescott, it resulted in a latency increase that caused mixed results. Sometimes it would lead to a performance increase due to increase storage - sometimes it would lead to decreased performance due to higher latency) Presler is a good processor for your money and people are finding that they're quite easily overclocking theirs to the 4GHz margin on air.

That said, the AMD X2's benefit from the same things you'd expect from a current AMD processor with it's shorter pipeline resulting in better gaming performance in comparison to a Pentium 4. The real positive ends of the AMD dual-cores are seen in the Opterons - that are being overclocked like mad to speeds of 2.9GHz on air stable. Which as you can imagine, provides a solid gaming experience at a price that's hard to beat.

Both processors are good however, and both Intel and AMD dual-cores offer good price/performance ratios for both solutions - although in gaming, you'd be hard-pressed finding something better than the AMD at the moment - even though both processors play games perfectly well.

And if you're willing to spend $1000 on a processor... Don't, ever. If you wanted FX-60 performance you could easily get an Opteron, good air cooling, and overclock it to above FX-60 speeds. With the extra money, you could probably buff up every other component in the computer, with some to spare.
SSE5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2006, 09:29 PM   #26
Solid State Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 20
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

definately dual core AMD.
s0path is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2006, 09:05 PM   #27
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

Turion 64 X2 is also coming out. Turion 64 X2 + ATI Radeon Xpress and Turion 64 X2 + nVidia SLI.
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2006, 09:15 PM   #28
Fully Optimized
 
NeXuS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,960
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

nice a AMD lappy with X2
NeXuS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2006, 09:29 PM   #29
Golden Master
 
ISOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,208
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

I should say they're prototypes instead of "coming out", but it will be exciting when it comes out. Dual core laptops from AMD. Whew...
__________________
*Fact: Microsoft Window's Blue Screen of Death vs Computerforums.org's White Screen of Death. Which is worse?
ISOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 12:08 PM   #30
Baseband Member
 
pyromaniac0378's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33
Send a message via AIM to pyromaniac0378
Default Re: INTEL DUAL CORES vs. AMD DUAL CORES

This is the think with Intel & Amd...
If u r going to use your computer just for internet,work (school) and other things i would get a Intel.
Amd are for gamers.. I would would get a Amd if you are going to use it for games. Amd is good for its gamming use and intel is good for its work stuff

If i was you i would get the new apple (IMAC-20 Inch/2Ghz core duo)
__________________

pyromaniac0378 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0