• 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.

how fast is cpu compared to latest intels?

I would think it still cuts it...an overclocked e6600 will destroy it but that doesn't mean the older X2's can't hold their own. An opty at 2.7-2.8ghz coupled with a decent GPU will still perform nicely in games (assuming you ARE talking about games? )
 
I did a clock for clock comparison.

A dual core opty vs. an E6600.

Both running 266*9, both on PC/PC2-4200, both at CAS 3-4-4-different-different.

It was surprisingly close, and the AMD chip did win a few tests.

When the site comes back to life I'll post a link.
 
939 still holds it's own against the c2d's for a lot of tasks at stock.

when you open up the conroe's is where the real meat is, as we all know there's just so much more headroom versus 939 for clocking......generally :)
 
Concorde Rules said:
Memory is faster?

In what way? More Mb/s?


If so, so what!?

Conroe beats everything AMD has, in power, overclocking, etc :)
Click to expand...

The on chip memory controller gives K8 a nice little advantage in memory dependant processes, WinRAR for example, it almost makes up for AMD's small cache sizes.

And AMD have the 3DNOW instructions.
 
Remember AMD tech is over 3.5 years old now, the CPU has not changed really apart from socket and tweaks to Mmeory Controler.

Intels 1 year old tech C2D are said to be about 15% faster in real sue, obv AMD wins for memory bandwidth and latency.
 
I thought it was generally considered that a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, generally outperformed a 2.8Ghz Athlon 64 dualcore, in virtually all bar a handfull of synthetic tests.

The C2D's large shared cache compensating very well for the fact that C2D still uses a legacy style FSB.

Of course it could be said that P4's quad pumped FSB was well ahead of its time, afterall it has the same bandwidth as DDR2 'Dual channel' at 533Mhz (677 now we're up to 1333 FSB). The AMD's integrated memory controller really isnt that much ahead in the real world outside synthetic benchmarks.

As for 3dNow..... hardly any applications ever used it, it was just an alternative to MMX , and now both 3DNow and MMX are virtually obsolete by because of SSE.

The only reason AMD are still selling Athlon64 / X2's is because they dumped the price to remain competitive with intel. So yeah, if you compare pricelike AMD V Intel the performance isnt that big at stock... But then you would be comparing a 1.83Ghz C2D with a 2.2Ghz or faster X2.

C2D is the better architecture, but at stock speeds, and retail prices both AMD and Intel offerings are very good for the average consumer. For enthusiasts the Intel's probably better though. Clock for clock its considerably faster, and it has greater potential for overclocking, without the need for obsene cooling systems. (and if you have an obsene cooling system it will go even further)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom