• 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.

Core 2 or X2?

d3moliti0n

d3moliti0n

d3moliti0n

Associate
Joined
11 Aug 2007
Posts
1,662
Hi there

Basically I am intending on upgrading my computers motherboard, processor and ram. Currently I have an Athlon X64 3200+ (Socket 939), 2GB DDR Ram and a Radeon HD3850 256MB (PCI-E) but my motherboard is some stock Asus HP one that came stock in this HP Pavilion PC. But I was wondering, if I upgrade to a dual-core do I want to go with Core 2 Duo or X2 AM2's nowadays? It seems to workout cheaper buying an AM2 setup though. I am using the PC for mainly gaming aswell, but I have only just got this graphics card about 3 or 4 weeks ago so hopefully that should suffice for a while. Any feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks for your help and time.
 
Howcome no one uses the AM2 chips now for gaming then? Are they a disadvantage or something? Cos I remember at one time people said the AMD X64's were the best processor on the market for gaming. That was a while ago though lol, I was just wondering have they gone worse nowadays?
 
Intel came along with C2D and thats much better clock for clock than AMD atm. Plus the fact they are 45/60nm vs I think 90nm still? so they use less power and clock further.

Intel is the leader atm :)
 
Second that, Intel are way out in front at the moment. My next build will be at the end of the year and Im hoping that AMD will have caught up by then.
So saying, an AMD board, CPU and Gfx might see some performance gains once they get the new drivers sorted - that is allowing for the new Phenoms (B3 stepping) being any good at OCing.
 
It's quite simple really. If your budget allows, get a Core 2 Duo CPU + Relevant motherboard.
I've owned a Socket 939 system having tested a number of CPU's, I've owned a Core 2 Duo step since May last year and I've recently tested Socket AM2 hardware against the Core 2 Duo. The results are no different to the thousands of other reviewers (be it user reviews or the likes of Anandtech, THG) on the internet who have clearly proven that the Core 2 Duo is faster in the majority of price points. The differences were more than noticeable in some applications including Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

If you are a keen gamer, Core 2 Duo is the way to go. Not only are they quick, they overclock well and has an easy upgrade route to faster Dual Cores and Quad Cores. I realise that you'd have the option to upgrade to AMD Quads if you go AM2 but they simply aren't that competitive against the Core 2 Quad.

Bare in mind that the move to Socket AM2 or Core 2 Duo LGA775 will need DDR2 RAM as well as a motherboard swap. Also be sure that your Power Supply Unit is up for the job and whether your case is ATX, Micro ATX or some propreitory form factor.

Mul
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I plan on buying a new motherboard, processor and 2gb of ddr2 memory. I have no idea what case I have tbh, it's a stock HP Pavilion one that I will be using for a while and I will eventually upgrade to a better case but my main priority are those 3 components at the moment. My PSU is a 650w one so hopefully it will be powerful enough to power a dual-core system. How do I tell what type of case I have btw?
 
when comparing AMD to intel you can only compare chips with the same price, rather than intel has the fastest processor, therefore its better in everything??

the AMD 9500 and intel E8200 are equally priced at 120pounds, the AMD in this case will be the better choice, unless you only play games and nothing else...

what else you dont say your budget, if you want to spend 150 pounds i would certainly recommend the Q6600 because its the best!.. when ive overclocked it there is a 40% performance increase and beats the Q9770 @ its stock

also, you need to update graphics or there will be no difference in your FPS. there are a lot of options really it all depends on budget, i would suggest a LGA775 mobo.

good luck
 
Last edited:
edgedemon said:
Second that, Intel are way out in front at the moment. My next build will be at the end of the year and Im hoping that AMD will have caught up by then.
So saying, an AMD board, CPU and Gfx might see some performance gains once they get the new drivers sorted - that is allowing for the new Phenoms (B3 stepping) being any good at OCing.
Click to expand...

Phenom at best matches Core 2's clock for clock, and by the end of the year intel will have Nehelem out, and that should increase IPC even further, and it adds a new bus (similar to hypertransport), adds an integrated memory controller, (dual or tripple channel depending on model), and brings back Hyperthreading, not to mention it will be a native quad design.

Intel have all the cards at the moment, although the Phenoms are certainly not bad processors for people who already have an AM2 board and are looking for a quick and affordable upgrade.
 
platinum87 said:
the AMD 9500 and intel E8200 are equally priced at 120pounds, the AMD in this case will be the better choice, unless you only play games and nothing else...
Click to expand...

Most applications dont make full use of dual core, let alone quad though. The 9500 is 2.2Ghz, and the 8200 is 2.66Ghz and will overclock far above that. As Phenom is roughly clock for clock matched with Conroe/Kentsfield Core 2's, and the Penryns's are slightly faster than that, in applications which only use 1 or 2 cores, the E8200 is probably 25% faster than the 9500. In apps which do use all 4 cores, the 9500 would likely be 30-50% faster. So its not as clear cut as you suggest.

The 8200 should use less power at stock, so its a better choice for a "business computer" running office applications, and the 8200 will overclock further making it a more obvious choice for overclockers.
 
Edit- Beaten to it. I agree with Corasik

Totally understand where you're coming from. However you've got to bare in mind that at least when comparing Quad for Quad, the Phenom 9500 is roughly £30 cheaper than the Q6600 but it's also 200MHz slower and not as fast clock for clock. It doesn't exactly run cooler either. Furthermore, the Phenoms don't overclock as well and so far there's no indication of future versions of the Phenom performing any better. Going Core 2 Quad will mean a faster system straight out of the box, better overclocking potential and the option to upgrade to faster 45nm Quads. 'course, not every application that he may use takes full advantage of all 4 cores. In that case, the E8200 would be faster.

In the scenario mentioned, I agree that the Phenom would be cheaper. It's just not as fast. All in all I still say the extra money invested in a Core 2 based machine is worthwhile.

Not too sure why he'd need to change his graphics card. The HD 3850's terribly bottlenecked by the existing S939 Athlon 64 3200+ and he'll get a lot more out of it as soon as he upgrades his CPU and Motherboard.
 
I'm only acually planning on buying a low end dual-core, something in the range of £50, maybe a bit more, maybe less. I plan on spending about £150 on the mobo/cpu/ram as I already have my graphics card (which is basicaly brand new, only purchased about 4 weeks ago) and a 16x DVD Re-Writer etc.

Edit: Basically something that will last me about a year or so, maybe a bit longer, or a bit less depending on when I buy a whole new PC, but this system is definitely going to be used for around another year or so for gaming, I plan on buying some of the upcoming MMO's and Far Cry 2, stuff like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom