• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Athlon to replace a Intel

timboellis

timboellis

timboellis

Associate
Joined
12 Oct 2005
Posts
66
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 ?
 
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.
 
1.8 Ghz Conroe > 2.1 Ghz X2.

0,1425,sz=1&i=139041,00.gif


Utterly raped.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014654,00.asp
 
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".
Click to expand...
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;

0,1425,sz=1&i=139037,00.gif


0,1425,sz=1&i=139038,00.gif


0,1425,sz=1&i=139017,00.gif
 
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 ?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Defcon5 said:
No. As that bench clearly shows, it is 1fps faster.
Click to expand...

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:
:o

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
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom