• 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.

Which performs better at stock?

Associate
Joined
14 Jan 2004
Posts
840
Location
Reading, UK
If I have no intention whatsoever of overclocking, am I better off going with AMD or Intel right now? And what is better for me for the future, bearing in mind Agena is coming out on AM2 and Penryns are due for Intel?

There seems to be very little difference between an AM2 5600+ and an E6600 (the latter of which is a bit more expensive than I plan to pay, I would likely go for an E6420 which logically will perform less than a 5600+, but I couldn't find any figures to support this as Tom's Hardware doesn't have them listed)

Any input?
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
2,013
it really depends on your budget, though at most price points it seems to me like at stock things are pretty much even, with AMD maybe winning slightly at the low end. Not sure about the high end.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Feb 2007
Posts
9,512
Location
Cheshire
Core 2 Duo's are far superior to the AMD X2's, what sort of a budget do you have?

if you really want a Penryn then i would get a p35 chipset motherboard that supports the Penryn and a E2160 to last you.

if you ever feel like giving overclocking a go, the E2160 is more than capable of 2ghz+ on stock cooling.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,365
Location
West Midlands
Well you can now get the AMD 6000+ for a significant price below that of the E6600 and as that performs faster at stock then it would be the logical choice, think OCUK have it listed at £117.50 inc. VAT.

However if you are looking at the future then you would be wise to look at both, no one really knows what AMD's offering is going to perform like, and Penryn is supposed to be a little faster than the latest COre 2's but again until they come out nobody knows for sure. If I were you and you are planning a long while before you can upgrade, go with whats fastest today not what might be in 6 months. :)
 
Associate
Joined
20 Sep 2006
Posts
1,418
Location
Southampton, England
Sinny said:
Core 2 Duo's are far superior to the AMD X2's

Not true, with the prices at the moment, stock speeds are about even, if not marginaly in favour of AMD in the E6600 segment and below.

Intel are the only company with quads out (unless you go for the AMD 2 chip solution), however Agena is only a couple of months away.

For upgradeability, AMD's AM2/AM2+ sockets are compatible with both Agena, and their future AM3 processors (next year some time, DDR3 support).

While P35/X38 is compatible with Penryn, the next chip out (codename Nehlaem?) will be a new socket as it will have an on-board mem controler (so need more pins).

At the moment Penryn is looking to be a minor improvement on C2D, more of a tweak than an upgrade, and its still doubtfull whether Agena can even match C2D, let alone beat it.

take your pick!
 
Associate
OP
Joined
14 Jan 2004
Posts
840
Location
Reading, UK
simonnance said:
Not true, with the prices at the moment, stock speeds are about even, if not marginaly in favour of AMD in the E6600 segment and below.
simonnance said:
its still doubtfull whether Agena can even match C2D, let alone beat it.

Bit of a contradiction. I find it unlikely that AMD's next chips will be inferior to Intel's current chips...
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2003
Posts
14,716
Location
London
Arterion said:
Any input?
__________________
=AMD Athlon64 3500+ Winchester=
=Abit AN8-32X-SLi=
=1gb Corsair TwinXMS Pro 4000=
=Galaxy 7900GT=
That looks like a sweet system u have there, i'd be tempted to thrown in a faster CPU and an extra 1GB of memory myself! :D

At the very least I'd overclock the 3500+ (2.2GHz/512KB) to beyond 4000+ speeds, I'm sure you could get 2600MHz - 2700MHz with a bit of tinkering! ;)
 
Associate
OP
Joined
14 Jan 2004
Posts
840
Location
Reading, UK
KangooVanMan said:
There really aint much wrong with what you already have mate.

Other than the fact that the system in question has died :D

Definitely need a new one. And no, even with that RAM my chip never liked anything above 2.4Ghz, it was an appalling clocker :(
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
20 Sep 2006
Posts
1,418
Location
Southampton, England
Arterion said:
Bit of a contradiction. I find it unlikely that AMD's next chips will be inferior to Intel's current chips...

i was talking clock-for-clock comparison, as well as scaling and overclocking.

A64s keep up with Core2Duos at stock by having higher clock speeds, and the advantage is lost when overclocking as the A64s have very little headroom in the higher models (compared to E6600s and E6800s that can clock 1Ghz higher at times).

In order to compete with the enthusiast attraction to C2d, Agena has to idealy be at least 2 of the following:
Faster clock-for-clock than Core2Quad (hopefuly true)
Cooler than C2Q
Have higher stock freqs that C2Q (which isnt going to happen)
Overclock better than C2Q

and idealy by a margin enough to be a threat to the new Penryn chips out in Dec/Jan (which appear to be faster than C2D by a small margni, should be cooler, and may clock better)

So its a bit of a tight race at the moment.

Thing is, in the end although the performance crown is a good goal, at the moment C2Ds and C2Qs are very good processors, and Agena looks to be good too. An overclocked C2D will probably not bottleneck a top of the range GFX for a while yet, so you are virtualy comparing two sports cars that both go faster than you need to (at the moment at least, and prob for the next while) unless you specificaly do word with very heavy processor usage (encoding ect).

Compared to that, A64 vs Netburst was a case of a sports car vs a muscle car, though the latter had a lot of torque, it couldnt turn corners very well, so unless you wanted flat out speed it was a bit of an easy decision (A64 was leaps better with games, Netburst better with things that utilised the long pipeline).

My personal oppinion? Agena/C2q/Penryn either are, or are going to be, sufficiently decent processors that you will not be ashamed to use them, and the performance difference in games will be not great (which is what a lot of us use them for)

But despite that, i'm still looking foward to seeing how they compare!
 
Back
Top Bottom