AM2 or C2D ? again. (SORRY)

Nymins · 24 Mar 2007 at 13:21

There was barely any performance increase coming from DDR1 to DDR2. Applications and general performance there was an increase, but looking at games there was hardly any. I seriously doubt that DDR3 will do anything in the way of noticeable performance increase.

And i whole-heartedly agree with Zefan on his statement earlier:

What reasons? To get the most out of a better AMD chip you'll have to get a motherboard with the yet to be released socket anyway.

stickroad · 24 Mar 2007 at 13:25

Kamakazie! said:
When will people learn. AMD are not a good deal for those that are overclocking. For people that do not want to do this (and there are plenty of people that don't). Then AMD is still hugely competitive on price v performance.

Ok Kam, i wont be overclocking, give me a chip from AMD and a Intel Core 2 Duo chip, which you think AMD will win over on the performance side? Has to be pretty near the same price.

jaykay · 24 Mar 2007 at 13:36

well for £ 105 you can get a amd 4600+ x2
compared to £111 intels 4300 core 2 duo
im pretty sure that the 4600 would win

this is for no overclockers if overclocknig then c2d

taz488 · 24 Mar 2007 at 13:44

well played kamakazie, spot on. at least some people have sense around here.

Curio · 24 Mar 2007 at 13:44

I recently went for an AM2 X2 over a C2D. I'm not sure what the prices are like in the UK right now, but over here you can get great deals on AMD stuff. My X2 3800 cost $109 - the cheapest C2D was $165. C2D mobos are also more expensive - you seem to get more for your money with AM2. Again, I'm basing this on the US market.

And let's be realistic here: C2D are better on paper, sure. Doesn't mean X2's are slow tho, does it. My 3800 screams through the latest games, especially if they're dual core optimised. If people want to get X2 then so what :confused:

The same thing happened when it was P4 v AMD64. My P4 2.6GHz lasted me for 3 years (with some overclocking) with no problem at all. To listen to the AMD fan boys tho......my P4 shouldn't have been able to cope with Space Invaders or PacMan :rolleyes:

Kamakazie! · 24 Mar 2007 at 13:54

stickroad said:
Ok Kam, i wont be overclocking, give me a chip from AMD and a Intel Core 2 Duo chip, which you think AMD will win over on the performance side? Has to be pretty near the same price.

Based on the Anandtech review figures here.

AMD X2 4600+ at £105
vs
Intel E4300 at £111
Intel E6300 at £119

The 4600+ wins 7 of the benchmarks and the E4300 wins 4.
With the 6300 it is 6 to the X2 and 5 to the E6300.

So at stock you have better performance for less money. Pretty simple really.
The 4200+ loses out in the benchmarks by like 7/8 to 4/3 but then is £30-£40 cheaper.

kingo15 · 24 Mar 2007 at 14:01

without get too involed in all the technically stuff which i dont now a lot about all i can go is what i have got and what i have used.

i have a amd setup as per my sig..

my spare pc which recently blew up which was also a old amd so i decided for money reason to go for a c2d e6300 1 gig geil ddr2 ultra 800mhz stuff, and a p5b. oh yeah and a 7300 super oc card.

benching the 2 systems on cpu performance the amd loses out on most things,

making me wonder if i made the right choice in spending all the extra money late last year on the am2 chip.

Kamakazie! · 24 Mar 2007 at 14:39

Oh, no sarcy comments anymore?
That makes a change.

Anyhow, to sum up this thread.... do your own research and don't just listen to what other people say. Usually they just jump on the nearest bandwagon as a safe bet.

Also... if you are not overclocking, take your pick. Both will do you proud and are well worth the money. There are some real bargains to be had. If you are overclocking, go C2D.

stickroad · 24 Mar 2007 at 14:40

Kamakazie! said:
Based on the Anandtech review figures here.

AMD X2 4600+ at £105
vs
Intel E4300 at £111
Intel E6300 at £119

The 4600+ wins 7 of the benchmarks and the E4300 wins 4.
With the 6300 it is 6 to the X2 and 5 to the E6300.

So at stock you have better performance for less money. Pretty simple really.
The 4200+ loses out in the benchmarks by like 7/8 to 4/3 but then is £30-£40 cheaper.

I see Kam, well i take back what i said, but overclocking C2D.

What about the Cache on the chips, how much of a real life difference does this have?

jaykay · 24 Mar 2007 at 14:54

chache depends on the type of archutechture (spelt that miles wrong)
for e.g. amd dont need huge amounts of cache
while intel do thats why amds have about 512kb-1mb per core
and intel have 2mb-4mb for the chip

pegasus1 · 25 Mar 2007 at 11:04

Zefan said:
I see your points, but do they need to be in individual posts ?

Another only child

Kamakazie! · 25 Mar 2007 at 13:31

pegasus1 said:
Another only child

I couldn't be bothered to use edit and quote... much easier to make separate posts!

Cupra · 25 Mar 2007 at 13:36

ive always hated intel... and i did debate an am2 but i am so glad i didnt.. but if a really good amd chip came out i wouldnt be able to resist a buy but there just isnt anything worth my money atm

Jleo · 25 Mar 2007 at 14:09

paul_64l said:
ive always hated intel...

Hate or hatred is an emotion of intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon; a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy its object.

I at one time disliked Intel simple because their cpu's where expensive and toff's would lift their noses like there was a bad smell in the air at the mention of Cyrix/Ibm or Amd processors. It was as if the Intel chips managed to do something that the competition couldn't do! and yes I have to admit the toffs were right, Intel managed to get more money than needed out of thier wallets

This is a bygone time, now cpu capability is not so esoteric or is it?

Jabbs · 25 Mar 2007 at 16:03

NO competition really a small over clock on a 6300 and you beat anything amd have, imo its worth the extra £30 for a better cpu who would build a AM2 system now anyway.

Rib_Tickler · 25 Mar 2007 at 16:28

OK. I'm sold. C2D it is.
But now my next question. Do i go for E4300, E6300, E6400 or E6600?
Would it be best to go for E6300 and overclock? If so, which motherboard?
I only need 2 SATA 150 ports. And DDR2. Pci-e slot. Cheaper the better, but would pay for the best OC.

Nymins · 25 Mar 2007 at 16:31

I would get the E4300 and the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3. The E4300 is amazing at overclocking with budget DDRII667 ram. The motherboard would suit any of the C2D's out, but for a budget overclocker, go for the E4300+DS3 and some cheapo DDRII667 ram.

Rib_Tickler · 25 Mar 2007 at 16:34

The E6300 is only £8 more. Is it not worth it for the extra FSB speed?

Nymins · 25 Mar 2007 at 16:39

Im in the same situation as you. I was very tempted by the E6300, but they are the same chip just lower FSB on the E4300. And since im on a tight budget, i need to buy cheaper ram that will still work fine even when in overclock. So the E4300 gets my vote. Im sure there is a lot of threads on E4300 vs E6300, but it really depends on your price range.

Get the E6300 if you are going to buy more expensive ram like DDRII800+, and if you have experience in overclocking because the E6300 is harder to overclock than the E4300.

Get the E4300 if you are planning on cheaper ram like DDRII667 or less, and if you dont know much about overclocking because the E4300 is extremely easy to overclock. Basically just raising the FSB and not touching RAM speeds or timings if you dont want to.

The E4300 will hit 3GHz much easier than the E6300 because of the higher multiplier. E4300 has 9x and the E6300 has 7x.

Jleo · 25 Mar 2007 at 16:41

Rib_Tickler said:
The E6300 is only £8 more. Is it not worth it for the extra FSB speed?

If money is no object go for the E6300.

E4300 and budget ram >> saves you money
E6300 requires more expensive ram to overclock