xbitlabs dual core roundup

str · 30 Mar 2007 at 21:56

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup.html

Interesting reading about the forthcoming price reductions from AMD and Intel in April and the overclocking superiority of the Core2Duo CPUs although will soon be able to buy very cheap AMD AM2 CPUs and clock them high to save a decent amount of cash.

Gashman · 31 Mar 2007 at 00:50

str said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/dualcore-roundup.html

Interesting reading about the forthcoming price reductions from AMD and Intel in April and the overclocking superiority of the Core2Duo CPUs although will soon be able to buy very cheap AMD AM2 CPUs and clock them high to save a decent amount of cash.

that last sentence is the only real appeal of AM2 at the moment, you can have yourself a 3800+ for a little over £60 clock it to about 2.6Ghz or so and be done with it, the cheapest C2D processor on the other hand is about £50 more, plus i notice on average AM2 boards are cheaper as well

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 01:09

An AM2 @ 2.6ghz is slow by todays standards.

50 quid extra is worth it for C2D.

Emlyn_Dewar · 31 Mar 2007 at 02:14

The 3800's from the Clearance section were in the mid £50 range were they not? That's a bargain for that processor, slow or not by todays standards, at 2.6ghz you're set for fast machine.
I've had mine at 2.6 and it will easier do faster, it was well more than enough for gaming and anything I needed to do. (I'm not a video encoding stylee person...)

As far as budget dual core goes, I don't see how anyone can argue with AMD's base X2's. Yes, the C2D's are better but they are also more expensive. As far as budget performance goes, that's where AMD has the upper hand.
Doesn't really have much choice I guess, can't compete at higher end right now, and overclocking the base C2D will yield higher results.
I am glad I'm with my AMD at moment though, it was so cheap I couldn't say no.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 02:17

I think 60 quid is pricey considering for 40 more you can have a cpu twice as fast that beats it in any benchmark.

Tute · 31 Mar 2007 at 02:32

easyrider said:
I think 60 quid is pricey considering for 40 more you can have a cpu twice as fast that beats it in any benchmark.

In my opinion if you're paying £50 for a processor then you're working on a pretty strict budget. So that £50 saved over the E4300 would probably make all the difference.

I see where you're coming from, the E4300 is amazing bang for buck, but some people really do have to work to a set amount, and that amount only.

WJA96 · 31 Mar 2007 at 10:27

I think the take-home message from that is that you'd be crazy to buy any processor at the moment, especially a high-end Core2Duo, if you can wait until May/June time (at which point the prices will come down just in time for the traditional summer dead-spot in sales).

There is already somewhere doing E4300's for £96 delivered, so you can imagine what's going to happen after the price cuts.

On the other hand - now is an excellent time to sell your Core2Duo processor if you have more than one!

DJKahuna · 31 Mar 2007 at 12:53

easyrider said:
I think 60 quid is pricey considering for 40 more you can have a cpu twice as fast that beats it in any benchmark.

I hope you're not basing that on the Intel benchmarks. There was a story about them using the lowest opty they could get, against one of their mid-range C2D's.

Cyber-Mav · 31 Mar 2007 at 14:03

DJKahuna said:
I hope you're not basing that on the Intel benchmarks. There was a story about them using the lowest opty they could get, against one of their mid-range C2D's.

i thought they used the fastest opty available and compared it to the slowest c2d :confused:

~>Dg<~ · 31 Mar 2007 at 14:29

am2 4600 for 80 quid some places sorry but thats a bargin better at stock than a 6300 cheaper and nearly as fast as a 6400 at stock .yes c2d faster but that is a bargin forget benchmarks cause 99per biased .that will play any games at highest level and last you a year at least.

Digital Punk · 31 Mar 2007 at 15:51

easyrider said:
An AM2 @ 2.6ghz is slow by todays standards.

No it isn't.
Its plenty fast for pretty much all of todays applications.

At work, we're shipping far more new AM2 systems out to clients than Intel ones.

Businesses are loving the low price and stellar performance of the AMD's.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 16:02

easyrider said:
An AM2 @ 2.6ghz is slow by todays standards.

50 quid extra is worth it for C2D.

Erm. No it isn't.

Emlyn_Dewar · 31 Mar 2007 at 17:04

If you're not overclocking then I don't see how anyone could say the C2d is worth £50 more, given that the x2 3800 is just over £50 anyway...
Even with overclocking you're still getting good performance for a very low amount of money.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 21:49

DJKahuna said:
I hope you're not basing that on the Intel benchmarks. There was a story about them using the lowest opty they could get, against one of their mid-range C2D's.

I'm basing it on first hand experience of using AMD opterons,X2 and most of the C2D range thanks.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 21:53

lay-z-boy said:
Erm. No it isn't.

I'm sorry but it is.

18 months ago i had a opty 170 running @ 2.8ghz @ 1.375v

I upgraded to E6600 and clocked to 3.8ghz it destroyed the opty in everything not just by a bit but by a massive amount.

AM2 doesn't scale like C2D

AM2 is slow compared to C2D even when clocked.

This is fact.

So dont say that it is when it clearly is not.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 22:41

So is that today's standards or yours?, i thinks its yours.

To bring overclocking into the equation is just pointless as well.

I'm not bothered by how much your conroe 'destroys' the athlon, an athlon 64 x2 at 2.6ghz is not slow, perhaps if you went round to your mates or went to a few lans you would think differently but that comment is quite simply ridiculous.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 22:52

lay-z-boy said:
So is that today's standards or yours?, i thinks its yours.

To bring overclocking into the equation is just pointless as well.

I'm not bothered by how much your conroe 'destroys' the athlon, an athlon 64 x2 at 2.6ghz is not slow, perhaps if you went round to your mates or went to a few lans you would think differently but that comment is quite simply ridiculous.

I don't see how.

You basing this notion on gaming...or in general?

Video editing came alive with my C2D.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:04

easyrider said:
I don't see how.

You basing this notion on gaming...or in general?

Video editing came alive with my C2D.

I wont disagree that a c2d is fast (clocked, even more so)

But an athlon x2 at 2.6 is just not slow.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:08

lay-z-boy said:
I wont disagree that a c2d is fast (clocked, even more so)

But an athlon x2 at 2.6 is just not slow.

OK,

Based on the performance one can get at home with C2D for very little outlay.

X2 @ 2.6ghz is now long in the tooth.

That better for you?

On a serious note. The AMD range is offering no perfromance increase over what was happening 2 yrs ago.

So in PC hardware terms its slow.

w3bbo · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:08

It all depends on how you reference slow.