-
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.
Just to Confirm something
- Thread starter Zip
- Start date
Soldato
Yes.
Associate
Well tbh yes
Soldato
Only when overclocked. A recent test with identically priced rigs at stock speeds, the AM2 system was in some games as much as 50% faster than the C2D. No-one disputes that the C2Ds are great clockers and will reach much higher speeds than an equivalently priced AM2, but if you're not going to overclock, the AMD systems are faster for almost every game.
Caporegime
MikeTimbers said:
Interesting link there Mike. 5600s still aren't as cheap in the UK as 6300s though and the 6320 which have replaced the 6300s have four times more cache per core.
Soldato
That review was written at just the right time to be in AMD favor. Right after an AMD price cut, but just days before intels.
An E6300 is being phased out, and harder to find now, and the E6320 is less than $185. Further more the E6420 is only a few dollars more, retailing at around $193.
Running those same benchies using an E6420 will give much different results @ stock speeds. And thats ignoring the fact that C2D's overclock very easily.
An E6300 is being phased out, and harder to find now, and the E6320 is less than $185. Further more the E6420 is only a few dollars more, retailing at around $193.
Running those same benchies using an E6420 will give much different results @ stock speeds. And thats ignoring the fact that C2D's overclock very easily.
Soldato
mike is totally right, been trying to get it through peoples skulls for months, there is NOTHING special about C2D performance against AMD at stock speeds, you always get the people ranting how C2D is MASSIVE perfomance boost when running at 3.2Ghz, but hell an X2 would be pretty nippy at those speeds you gotta admit, nothing between them price/performance wise, period 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
there is nothing special about amd's or intel cpu's overclocked when gaming, 99% of games are just cpu limited. if you have a x1950pro or something there isn't really a game that will push it that hard or be unplayable at 1650x1050, but if you have a x2 3800 at stock or a q6800 it will not change the quality level or resolution you can game at. its all dependant on cpu and pretty much most cpu's are fine for gaming. yes faster cpu makes a difference at low res, but only in low res if you have a great card. if you are playing at 1024x768 but with a 7300gs or something you will again be gpu limited at that level.
by the looks of things, amd's cpu's come septemberish will almost definately be better than anything intel will have, and better than anything they will have for quite a long time. i think its only mid-end of NEXT year that a semi new design for a chip is coming from them, and theres no real indication of just how different it is. intel is getting sse4 and a bit of clock speed boost this year, but their quad cores(which will only be £160-170 in september) are heavily bandwidth limited, far more so than AMD counterparts will be. all early signs point to a pretty decent AMD win, and we've already seen benchmarks for intels september refresh, other than sse4 the performance gain over current intel quad cores are only a few % faster when clock speed is taken into account. the benchies show around a 20% inprovement, but they benched a 3.33Ghz "new" quad core against a 2.93Ghz kentsfield, so a 15% boost in clock speed, and also a faster front side bus, and theres only a 5% performance jump which is a LOT less than AMD think their K10 will better the Kentsfield by.
a cheaper now am2 rig, and an easier upgrade later in the year to a possibly VERY cheap quad core which is probo gonna be the fastest thing around for the next year. by cheap i mean, a Q6600 now around £350, and being half that price in september, amd will no doubt place a similarly priced quad core out.
by the looks of things, amd's cpu's come septemberish will almost definately be better than anything intel will have, and better than anything they will have for quite a long time. i think its only mid-end of NEXT year that a semi new design for a chip is coming from them, and theres no real indication of just how different it is. intel is getting sse4 and a bit of clock speed boost this year, but their quad cores(which will only be £160-170 in september) are heavily bandwidth limited, far more so than AMD counterparts will be. all early signs point to a pretty decent AMD win, and we've already seen benchmarks for intels september refresh, other than sse4 the performance gain over current intel quad cores are only a few % faster when clock speed is taken into account. the benchies show around a 20% inprovement, but they benched a 3.33Ghz "new" quad core against a 2.93Ghz kentsfield, so a 15% boost in clock speed, and also a faster front side bus, and theres only a 5% performance jump which is a LOT less than AMD think their K10 will better the Kentsfield by.
a cheaper now am2 rig, and an easier upgrade later in the year to a possibly VERY cheap quad core which is probo gonna be the fastest thing around for the next year. by cheap i mean, a Q6600 now around £350, and being half that price in september, amd will no doubt place a similarly priced quad core out.
Soldato
but what must worry any AMD fan is that AMD seem incapable of sticking to a specific socket type for more than a couple of years. Will K10 run on AM2 sockets? Or Socket F? Or something new?
Caporegime
^ Intel aren't much better. C2D has only just come out and their next chips wiill use a different pin interface. And in any case K10 will use AM2.
Soldato
Gashman said:mike is totally right, been trying to get it through peoples skulls for months, there is NOTHING special about C2D performance against AMD at stock speeds, you always get the people ranting how C2D is MASSIVE perfomance boost when running at 3.2Ghz, but hell an X2 would be pretty nippy at those speeds you gotta admit, nothing between them price/performance wise, period
I would disagree, clock for clock, the C2D's are quite a bit better than AMD's. However, to be able to sell their chips at all, AMD naturally reduced their prices to remain reasonably competitive at any given price point.
IE selling a 2.2Ghz AMD at the same price as a 1.83Ghz C2D.
Neither option is a 'bad' choice at stock speed, and the price war between Intel and AMD is just making the chips drop in price very often.
You cant compare an AMD with a C2D on a clock for clock basis, at any given speed the C2D will win 95% of tests by a wide margin. But once you factor in the price, they are pretty well matched.
Saying there is nothing special about C2D at stock speeds isnt really right, as when C2D was first released, it was considerably cheaper than the X2 offerings, an E6300 was initially cheaper than an X2 3800, and performs almost as well as an X2 4600. However AMD have been forced to slash prices to remain competitive.
The same will no doubt be true if the new Barcalona from AMD turns out a good performance. Intel will just cut the price on C2D's so that at any given price point they are still very competitive processors.
Gone are the days when Intel were flogging a dead horse (P4), while AMD had a true champion. I believe the future from both companies will be offering very comparible price V performance parts. The performance crown may well alternate between the two for people prepared to splash out on the fastest 'official' processors and leave them running at 'stock speeds'
Last edited:
Clock speeds have nothing to do with pricing, comparison (except between identical chips from the same family) or performance.
The only comparison is benchmark/real life performance vs price. The only valid comparison is between two chips that cost the same, you then buy the one that performs best at that price.
The only comparison is benchmark/real life performance vs price. The only valid comparison is between two chips that cost the same, you then buy the one that performs best at that price.
Soldato
Gashman said:mike is totally right, been trying to get it through peoples skulls for months, there is NOTHING special about C2D performance against AMD at stock speeds, you always get the people ranting how C2D is MASSIVE perfomance boost when running at 3.2Ghz, but hell an X2 would be pretty nippy at those speeds you gotta admit, nothing between them price/performance wise, period
that's quite an attitude to take. not one i particularly like either. this is an overclockers forum, why dont you go preach in the purple shirted store instead? clock for clock, 2cd's are faster. when it comes to overclocking, cd2's have more headroom. put the two together and you have a very fast cpu that amd can not right now touch. period. Thats why people here will recommend them. get it?
yes my c2d @ 3.3ghz is fast. how many dual core amd's will even get to 3.3ghz? i've not seen one do it on air yet.
Soldato
clock for clock C2D's are MUCH faster.
I know this as I just went from an AMD x2 4400+ @ 3.03ghz to my current rig...I can even tell a difference in how smoothly Vista operates.
I know this as I just went from an AMD x2 4400+ @ 3.03ghz to my current rig...I can even tell a difference in how smoothly Vista operates.
Soldato
Price/Performance comparisons only hold true, because AMD have been forced to slash the prices of their chips to maintain market share. They are selling an inferior product, and the only point they can change is the price.
Before C2D was released, and AMD's X2's were a lot more expensive than the current market prices. With chips like the X2 3800 retailing at E6300 prices at C2D's launch, so C2D was definatly the bargain performance chip.
Intel are pretty much masters of price drop too, considering they slashed the price of the E6700 almost in half (April 22nd).
It wasnt long ago that a chip with E6700 performance (AMD's FX 62), was over £600.
In the more distant past, it was alwasy AMD releaseing the 'budget priced' versions of Intel chips. But in the last 12 months its been Intel driving prices down.
Before C2D was released, and AMD's X2's were a lot more expensive than the current market prices. With chips like the X2 3800 retailing at E6300 prices at C2D's launch, so C2D was definatly the bargain performance chip.
Intel are pretty much masters of price drop too, considering they slashed the price of the E6700 almost in half (April 22nd).
It wasnt long ago that a chip with E6700 performance (AMD's FX 62), was over £600.
In the more distant past, it was alwasy AMD releaseing the 'budget priced' versions of Intel chips. But in the last 12 months its been Intel driving prices down.
Soldato
Why shouldn't price be a valid comparison tool though? We all have to pay for this stuff and not all of us have unlimited funds. If AMD is now stupidly cheap, we shouldn't be complaining that we can get great price/performace. We should, on the other hand, be worrying about AMD's massive losses at those prices which have been forced on them by Intel selling a great chip at very low prices, allegedly alo at a huge loss. If AMD go under, do you think Intel's prices will stay where they are?
Soldato
Certainly dont want AMD to go under. Good competition is health for the consumer. Intel would no doubt still be selling P4's if the AMD 64's were not such excellent processors.
I just feel its better to know the general performance of a processor by its model and clock speed, rather than by price. Having the full knowledge makes it easier in my mind to accomodate price drops.
Like a link posted recently comparing a $185 dollar AMD (x2 5600), and a $185 dollar intel (C2D E6300). Trouble is it was written on April 19th or so, by April 22nd it was already out of date, as the E6300 was being phased out, and the E6420 is already retailing at $190 dollars, which is to my eyes the 'same' price point.
At the end of the day, I guess it doesnt matter how you compare the processors, as long as you are armed with enough info to 'fill in the blanks' should the prices change when you go to make your order.
My point being, if you know how each model compares to each other, and remove price from the equation. Once you go to order your chip, and put the 'actual' prices into the equation, then its easy to work out which is best value.
I just feel its better to know the general performance of a processor by its model and clock speed, rather than by price. Having the full knowledge makes it easier in my mind to accomodate price drops.
Like a link posted recently comparing a $185 dollar AMD (x2 5600), and a $185 dollar intel (C2D E6300). Trouble is it was written on April 19th or so, by April 22nd it was already out of date, as the E6300 was being phased out, and the E6420 is already retailing at $190 dollars, which is to my eyes the 'same' price point.
At the end of the day, I guess it doesnt matter how you compare the processors, as long as you are armed with enough info to 'fill in the blanks' should the prices change when you go to make your order.
My point being, if you know how each model compares to each other, and remove price from the equation. Once you go to order your chip, and put the 'actual' prices into the equation, then its easy to work out which is best value.