Athlon to replace a Intel

timboellis · 13 Sep 2007 at 23:27

I had recently a Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8mhz 800 cant remeber the exact model with 2 gig of ram the question is this.

I was going to buy an Anthlon X2 64 4000 with 1 gig of ram will I notice any difference any way slower or faster for general usage and some far cry and would it be work getting another 1 gig stick as they were/will be runnign XP ?

tsinc80697 · 13 Sep 2007 at 23:31

The Core2Duo would be faster if you overclocked it atall ?

Quixote · 13 Sep 2007 at 23:34

the X2 4000 is 2.1 ghz against the core2duo 1.8 ghz.
The core2 is faster clock for clock though. I reckon the performance will be near enough the same. I certainly doubt you would notice any difference.
1 gig of ram will make no difference to performance unless you are using over 1 gig of ram in which case it will be much slower than 2 gig as it uses the hard disc as virtual ram.
For your uses, it should be ok for now but with ram so cheap, It's really worth getting 2 gig. You could always get 1 now and add another later.

melbourne720 · 13 Sep 2007 at 23:39

Agreed, that 1.8 GHZ chip will do 3 and leave that athlon behind

Margaret · 13 Sep 2007 at 23:54

1.8 Ghz Conroe > 2.1 Ghz X2.

Utterly raped.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014654,00.asp

Owenb · 14 Sep 2007 at 01:25

Jihad said:
1.8 Ghz Conroe > 2.1 Ghz X2.

Utterly raped.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014654,00.asp

You see 208 vs 249 i see 49 vs 50!

OP: you won't see any real difference in 99% of apps. The intel will be slightly faster on average. 2GB of ram isn't needed for windows, but will be useful to "future proof".

Margaret · 14 Sep 2007 at 01:49

Owenb said:
You see 208 vs 249 i see 49 vs 50!

OP: you won't see any real difference in 99% of apps. The intel will be slightly faster on average. 2GB of ram isn't needed for windows, but will be useful to "future proof".

The other bar is at high resolutions, why buy an inferior product when you already have a superior one.

2GB isn't really futureproof, 3GB or above is.

The Intel is actually more than slightly faster as shown above and here;

ACESHIGH · 14 Sep 2007 at 04:25

timboellis said:
I had recently a Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8mhz 800 cant remeber the exact model with 2 gig of ram the question is this.

I was going to buy an Anthlon X2 64 4000 with 1 gig of ram will I notice any difference any way slower or faster for general usage and some far cry and would it be work getting another 1 gig stick as they were/will be runnign XP ?

For general usage & some Far Cry you wont really notice any difference, especially if you get 2 gig Ram for the Athlon chip.

timboellis · 14 Sep 2007 at 09:06

Thanks for all your help cant wait to see how fast Solitair will run now!!!!!!!!!!!

Timdog · 14 Sep 2007 at 12:40

Jihad said:
snip

yea but that looks like its comparing the e6600 to an anthlon 4600, and they arent in the same price/performance range at all

at stock AMD win, but if your gonna overclock it go Intel

Justintime · 14 Sep 2007 at 14:46

Jihad said:
1.8 Ghz Conroe > 2.1 Ghz X2.

Utterly raped.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014654,00.asp

How was it raped? Where it matters i.e high res it don't make much difference at all, gpu used would make all the difference.

Devious · 14 Sep 2007 at 16:42

So if its the same at high resolutions why bother changing to the Athlon ?

BlairH · 14 Sep 2007 at 19:17

Core 2 Duo really is the only way to go at the moment. They overclock like absolute daemons.

Mul · 15 Sep 2007 at 13:36

The main point though is that he had a Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz based machine already. What he's doing right now is a sidestep at best or even a downgrade. Even in terms of overclocking and upgradability, the Core 2 LGA775 platform is superior. I'm not sure I understand the logic in this decision :confused:

Owenb · 15 Sep 2007 at 16:21

Mul said:
The main point though is that he had a Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz based machine already. What he's doing right now is a sidestep at best or even a downgrade. Even in terms of overclocking and upgradability, the Core 2 LGA775 platform is superior. I'm not sure I understand the logic in this decision

Dont think so. I think he had the loan or the use of a 1.8ghz core2 PC and is just wondering how it compares to an AMD 4000(4200) or so.

Margaret · 15 Sep 2007 at 17:35

Justintime said:
How was it raped? Where it matters i.e high res it don't make much difference at all, gpu used would make all the difference.

It still thrashes the Athlon that's how.

Timdog · 15 Sep 2007 at 18:12

Jihad said:
It still thrashes the Athlon that's how.

ok take two processors at the exact same price, one AMD, one intel

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=874&model2=921&chart=426

they are only thrashed if you overclock them, which not everyone does

Defcon5 · 15 Sep 2007 at 18:45

Jihad said:
It still thrashes the Athlon that's how.

No. As that bench clearly shows, it is 1fps faster.

I appreciate you are trying to start some kind of argument, but please listen to Timmy1988, he is correct.

Please look at the price/performance ratios here, with no overclocking, which has the most bang per buck? http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=877&model2=921&chart=444

Margaret · 15 Sep 2007 at 19:49

Defcon5 said:
No. As that bench clearly shows, it is 1fps faster.

Yes at higher resolution, at lower resolution it is clear which processor beats the other.

Why would I start an argument? I'm just stating facts. :confused:

Lower resolution or not it shows which is the faster processor, I've linked to multiple benchmarks and the Core 2 Duos beat the Athlons in a variety of different tests.

timmy1988 said:
ok take two processors at the exact same price, one AMD, one intel

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=874&model2=921&chart=426

they are only thrashed if you overclock them, which not everyone does

The benchmarks I linked had a few processors at stock and the Intels still thrashed the Athlons that were at the same clock speed. (Or in some cases a tad higher)

Mul · 15 Sep 2007 at 19:59

Defcon5 said:
No. As that bench clearly shows, it is 1fps faster.

I appreciate you are trying to start some kind of argument, but please listen to Timmy1988, he is correct.

Please look at the price/performance ratios here, with no overclocking, which has the most bang per buck? http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=877&model2=921&chart=444

Honest, I'm not looking for a fight but you've got to bear in mind that the Core 2 Duo E6850 and Quad Q6600 sit in the same price bracket as the E6600, both of which are a lot better as far as Performance/Price goes. Even the E6750 and E6550 offer more price/performance than the E6600. Then considering the prices of the E2140 and E2160, and how they perform I just don't see where the sense is in going Athlon 64 X2.

Going AM2 X2 may prove cheaper as you can find decent motherboards for around the £50 mark vs the £60-80 mark for Core 2's but it's money well spent in my opinion.

The reasons being

1) Core 2's Overclock better (granted not relevant for everyone)
2) Near enough Guaranteed Quad Core Support and even support for upcoming 45nm Core 2's that will be even quicker clock for clock. You needn't worry about not being able to upgrade your motherboard again (for a while) to have to support a quicker CPU in order to fight along side a quick graphics card.
3) Lower Power Consumption and Heat Output (Disputable when it comes to lower end X2's of course).

My two pennies.

Mul