xbitlabs dual core roundup

Reality|Bites · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:09

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=6&subid=567

spot the mistake

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:10

w3bbo said:
It all depends on how you reference slow.

Lets not go there.

Lets base this on fact.

C2D running 3.8ghz = fast

X2 running 2.6 ghz = slow

Sorry AMD fans....Thats how it is.

I can test and have tested both platforms.

I decree the x2 range running at 2.6ghz is slow.

Compared to current INTEL tech.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:11

easyrider said:
*snip*

Trying to discuss anything with you seems to be pointless.

As for the mistake, one is old stock the other is newer?

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:12

lay-z-boy said:
Trying to discuss anything with you seems to be pointless.

As for the mistake, one is old stock the other is newer?

Discussion is fine.

Find flaws in my arguement and the discussion will progress.

Thats how discussion works mate

Mr Paul · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:13

It's like saying a formula one car is slow because Thrust SST is faster.

FreeStream · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:15

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.

I had a 2.5ghz 939 X2, AM2 is what 1-2% quicker?

Im now on a 3.456Ghz Conroe.

K8 @ sub 2.6ghz is slow compared to it and I've actually had them side by side.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:16

You started to bring actually buying a new rig into the equation, that's not part of what i am trying to say.

ofc if i was to buy i new rig i would get a conroe, wouldn't think for a second chance to go and get an am2.

I'm just trying to say it isn't slow, in the general eye. For hardware enthusiasts i would consider your e6600 slow as it doesn't have 4 cores.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:17

Mr Paul said:
It's like saying a formula one car is slow because Thrust SST is faster.

Lets stop the car references right now.

An F1 cost millions

The little price differnce between the AM2 and C2D range is point enough.

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:19

lay-z-boy said:
You started to bring actually buying a new rig into the equation, that's not part of what i am trying to say.

ofc if i was to buy i new rig i would get a conroe, wouldn't think for a second chance to go and get an am2.

I'm just trying to say it isn't slow, in the general eye. For hardware enthusiasts i would consider your e6600 slow as it doesn't have 4 cores.

But that depends on the application.

A quad and a 6600 for example would be side by side running at the same clock speed in certain apps.

In the same app a AM2 and 6600 would be miles apart. even if they were running at the same clocks.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:21

Mr Paul said:
It's like saying a formula one car is slow because Thrust SST is faster.

Cars != pc's
Thought i would add though, i do see where your coming from.

conc said:
I had a 2.5ghz 939 X2, AM2 is what 1-2% quicker?

Im now on a 3.456Ghz Conroe.

K8 @ sub 2.6ghz is slow compared to it and I've actually had them side by side.

am2 is slower

Sure its going to be slower than something clocked miles above it and is also faster clock for clock but it wasn't pentium 1 - pentium 4, slow was it?

drak3 · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:23

I am using an 4400+ X2 @ 2.6Ghz atm with an 1900XT-X

I play games at 1280x1024, and I can count the games that wont play full quality on my fingers.

so I think 2.6ghz is still ~ok.

lay-z-boy · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:26

drak3 said:
I am using an 4400+ X2 @ 2.6Ghz atm with an 1900XT-X

I play games at 1280x1024, and I can count the games that wont play full quality on my fingers.

so I think 2.6ghz is still ~ok.

Your computer is dog slow, what kind of age you living in?

The stone age?

Crist.

(joke)

easyrider · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:33

drak3 said:
I am using an 4400+ X2 @ 2.6Ghz atm with an 1900XT-X

I play games at 1280x1024, and I can count the games that wont play full quality on my fingers.

so I think 2.6ghz is still ~ok.

Render HD content in premier then tell me the same thing over a C2D running 3.6ghz

Tute · 1 Apr 2007 at 00:27

With the recent price cuts, at stock the AM2 processors give as much bang for buck as the Conroes.

It's when overclocking that the gap becomes huge, and that the benefit of buying a Core 2 Duo becomes apparant.

But by no means are AMD processors slow. You think if you don't buy a C2D then your games will be unplayable? That's just stupid.

easyrider · 1 Apr 2007 at 00:32

Tute said:
But by no means are AMD processors slow. You think if you don't buy a C2D then your games will be unplayable? That's just stupid.

No one said that.

Tute · 1 Apr 2007 at 00:56

easyrider said:
No one said that.

I didn't say you did.

gtir666 · 1 Apr 2007 at 01:00

All I know is pc is just fast enough for what i use it for, it is am2, everything runs fast enough for me.

Luckily my pc i use all day at work is a 800mhz celeron 128mb ram and gives me headaches all day long so i can appreciate what ive got at home lol

Big.Wayne · 1 Apr 2007 at 02:16

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

An Opteron 170 in October 2005?, didn't realise they were on sale that early?

[edit] gOOgle throws up a release date of August 22nd 2005, I didn't pick up on them till Jan 06

Justintime · 1 Apr 2007 at 02:45

I had my first one in December of 05, very likely they were released for a few months by then.

WJA96 · 1 Apr 2007 at 10:32

Easyrider generally had all the new stuff first, then sold it for a (very) small loss and moved onto the next big thing.

I learned it all from him