xbitlabs dual core roundup

luismenendez · 1 Apr 2007 at 20:24

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

50 quid extra is worth it for C2D.

Yeah it takes ages to open IE

I should have replaced my opty 170 cos is very slow instead of buying a 8800gts, 700w PSU and 20.1 TFT last month

V F · 1 Apr 2007 at 22:06

What I find so amusing reading these threads is how for maybe the past year or two doesn't matter what hardware forum it is, how people are always preaching to each other, clock speeds don't matter in today's CPU's.

Yet someone like easyrider and many others around the globe goes on about it when its overclocked and makes it come across like Ghz truly matters.

What's that all about... it either does matter or it doesn't. It always comes across to me as if people are so blindly obsessed that theirs is bigger and faster than the next guys...

What suits them today won't suit them tomorrow.

The other chuckling part I find is the whole C2D thing the more its been on the go. Its almost like the Apple fanboy cult or whatever you want to call it that is forming. Everybody preaches to each other like if you don't get a C2D you're not part of their gang and left standing on the horizon. Even if its just someone that wants to upgrade a CPU and keep the socket they already have or keep their memory or whatever piece of hardware they may still want to keep. They are always telling them ditch your system and get a C2D even if it costs a load of money.

"Oh yeah if you go C2D it'll blow your previous system away even though you just gained 10 - 20fps!!11 over a X2"

I have nothing against people going with what they feel that is currently the best, but god when its people that are so obsessed preaching to each other like a C2D is going to obliterate a AMD X2 because his mate or such has one.

Its like children in the playground.

Dogoid · 2 Apr 2007 at 04:40

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

50 quid extra is worth it for C2D.

here we go again, does common sense ever come from your mouth?

that comment is so smug.

i see it all the time, smug people with high end systems always say any machine lower than what they have is slow. it makes you feel better about yourself.

bit insecure if you ask me.

the am2 2.6 is not slow by any standard. be it a gaming standard , encoding standard, compiling standard .

just because its not the fastest does not mean its slow.

you pay to much attention to marketing, if its not new its old etc.

your certainly not a realistic person in these regards.

wake up man

easyrider · 2 Apr 2007 at 11:55

WJA96 said:
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

Its fun testing new hardware.

easyrider · 2 Apr 2007 at 11:56

luismenendez said:
Yeah it takes ages to open IE

I should have replaced my opty 170 cos is very slow instead of buying a 8800gts, 700w PSU and 20.1 TFT last month

Iuse my laptop for the internet.

It a P4M @2ghz and it works fine.I have had it 4yrs

So stop with the predictable comments. lol

easyrider · 2 Apr 2007 at 12:09

V F said:
What I find so amusing reading these threads is how for maybe the past year or two doesn't matter what hardware forum it is, how people are always preaching to each other, clock speeds don't matter in today's CPU's.

Yet someone like easyrider and many others around the globe goes on about it when its overclocked and makes it come across like Ghz truly matters

That comment clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Clock speed for A64 when Prescott was the only other alternative was not an issue.

2.6ghz was fast compared to 3.4ghz P4 depending on application.AMD64 ruled in games.

Now its even less important as a 2.4ghz C2D beats and FX60 in every benchmark.

Wind this C2d to 3.8ghz and it destroys AMD and probably will for some time to come.

What's that all about... it either does matter or it doesn't. It always comes across to me as if people are so blindly obsessed that theirs is bigger and faster than the next guys...

What suits them today won't suit them tomorrow.

Exactly. My opty 170 was fast enough @2.8ghz when I had it as there was nothing faster at the time.C2D comes along and wow I realised my opty 170@ 2.8ghz was slow in premier and audition and after FX.

The other chuckling part I find is the whole C2D thing the more its been on the go. Its almost like the Apple fanboy cult or whatever you want to call it that is forming. Everybody preaches to each other like if you don't get a C2D you're not part of their gang and left standing on the horizon. Even if its just someone that wants to upgrade a CPU and keep the socket they already have or keep their memory or whatever piece of hardware they may still want to keep. They are always telling them ditch your system and get a C2D even if it costs a load of money.

Fact is 99% of the time upgrading to C2D can cost so little after selling the old stuff.

I sold my opty 170 for £260
My DFI expert for £100
My G skill HZ for £140

Cause I did this at the right time(few weeks before AMD slashed prices)

C2D cost me very little and yet I have a far faster PC.
I don't get precious about hardware.If AMD release something faster then I'll drop C2D.

"Oh yeah if you go C2D it'll blow your previous system away even though you just gained 10 - 20fps!!11 over a X2"

Again its gaming.Other people use their PC's in a professional capacity.
Rendering HD content in my video editor timeline quicker means I can get more done.Meaning I can make more money.

Why should I settlle for 2yr old tech?
When My C2D @3.8ghz destroys it.

I have nothing against people going with what they feel that is currently the best, but god when its people that are so obsessed preaching to each other like a C2D is going to obliterate a AMD X2 because his mate or such has one.

Its like children in the playground.

I'm not even going to respond to that last statement :rolleyes:

easyrider · 2 Apr 2007 at 12:12

Dogoid said:
here we go again, does common sense ever come from your mouth?

that comment is so smug.

That comment is fact.

i see it all the time, smug people with high end systems always say any machine lower than what they have is slow. it makes you feel better about yourself.

bit insecure if you ask me.

Stop trolling

the am2 2.6 is not slow by any standard. be it a gaming standard , encoding standard, compiling standard .

It is compared to tech available thats similar in price.

just because its not the fastest does not mean its slow.

what does it mean then?

you pay to much attention to marketing, if its not new its old etc.

your certainly not a realistic person in these regards.

wake up man

I'm more realistic than you.I don't fall for marketing I ditch tech before it drops in value allowing me to upgrade for very little.

I don't hold on to PC parts.I dont have a love relationship with AMD or Intel.

I use them.I'm a consumer.I want the fastest for my money.

Its that simple.

steve258 · 2 Apr 2007 at 13:16

V F said:
it either does matter or it doesn't

Ghz has always mattered, it's just not the only deciding factor for superior performance anymore.

Justintime · 2 Apr 2007 at 13:42

yep faster clock = better performance, whether its a PII,PIII Athlon64 or Prescott cpu, its just that some don't need all that clockspeed to match others running hundreds of Mhz higher. For instance a Core 2 E6300 at 3Ghz would be superior to a Prescott or Athlon64 at 3GHz with the Prescott trailing badly.

smsmasters · 2 Apr 2007 at 13:47

My e6600 @ 3.6ghz blows AMD out of the water.

james.miller · 2 Apr 2007 at 13:55

what a boring thread.

the only time the amd's are only slow when your talking about encoding, ripping or processing filters in photoshop..... otherwise, there isnt a huge difference between a dual core conroe and a dual core a64. for some people this performance edge is vitally important, for others it isn't. this is an issue that certain people refuse to accept. if you are not encoding, a64's aren't 'slow'.

the important point here though, is that they are both roughly the same price and the c2d's are still the faster of the two all round. if you are buying new, it makes little sense to go amd unless you have a very small budget in mind. also as we all know, the intels pull away fast when you start overclocking them. The article in the op explains well enough.

pegasus1 · 2 Apr 2007 at 16:30

Unles ive misread this article, i would have to spend more money on an AMD CPU to get the same STOCK gaming performance as my E6300.
And thats without the overclocking potential. My 3700SD was great but in comparason performs less steller than my C2D stock or when both overclocked.
For the record when both new my 3700SD was just under £190, my E6300 cost £117.

luismenendez · 2 Apr 2007 at 22:48

easyrider said:
Iuse my laptop for the internet.

It a P4M @2ghz and it works fine.I have had it 4yrs

So stop with the predictable comments. lol

mate you don't understand irony

Dark_Angel · 3 Apr 2007 at 00:48

Only time clock speed matters is when one CPU is compared to another of the same family.

Athlon 64 venice for example, or a conroe E6300.

The second other factors come in to play, then bang.

Even adding extra cache throws off MHZ by a bit (an extra 512K of cache on A64's used to basically be worth about 200MHZ for example).

I don't get what the big discusion is. If you have an Athlon 64 dual core NOW (as in already purchased) and you don't do more than a light bit of DVD creation, or you just game, then fine and dandy.

If you are a creative professional though, Conroe will be far faster (it is for me, I use Photoshop and blah blah blah blah blah at the same time) and the machine is far quicker, more responsive, and overall more enjoyable.

Sure, easyrider might have worded it a little "strong" but he is completely right. If you are doing creative work conroe is far faster, if all you do is game, then unless it is Supreme Commander, you probably won't notice to much.

Dogoid · 3 Apr 2007 at 01:03

Dark_Angel said:
Sure, easyrider might have worded it a little "strong" but he is completely right. If you are doing creative work conroe is far faster, if all you do is game, then unless it is Supreme Commander, you probably won't notice to much.

we all agree that conroe is faster, thats not what me and others are hitting him on.

his comment was that "An AM2 @ 2.6ghz is slow by todays standards"

obvious rubbish

joeyjojo · 3 Apr 2007 at 01:09

$113 for an E4300?! zomg!

Edit: reading up, what a surprise - yet another pointless argument about cpu's. Don't you get bored of these "discussions"?

PC-M Vip3r · 3 Apr 2007 at 01:56

joeyjojo said:
what a surprise - yet another pointless argument about cpu's. Don't you get bored of these "discussions"?

no such thing as pointless, you wouldnt of been making that point otherwise

pegasus1 · 3 Apr 2007 at 07:41

Dark_Angel said:
If you are doing creative work conroe is far faster, if all you do is game, then unless it is Supreme Commander, you probably won't notice to much.

I dont agree on the gamming front, i went from a 3700sd @2.65/2x1gig Ram/7800gtx to an [email protected]/2x1gig Ram/7800gtx and the difference in games was shocking. COH, MTW2, COD2 to name but a couple (well three). I know both are OCed but thats not the point.
Worth noting is that my E6300/P5N-E SLI cost less than £200, a 3700SD and comparable mobo would cost pounds £135. Cheeper but considerabley slower.

Tute · 3 Apr 2007 at 09:55

pegasus1 said:
I dont agree on the gamming front, i went from a 3700sd @2.65/2x1gig Ram/7800gtx to an [email protected]/2x1gig Ram/7800gtx and the difference in games was shocking. COH, MTW2, COD2 to name but a couple (well three). I know both are OCed but thats not the point.
Worth noting is that my E6300/P5N-E SLI cost less than £200, a 3700SD and comparable mobo would cost pounds £135. Cheeper but considerabley slower.

That's all well and good but you have to ask yourself, would most people notice the performance difference?

There's no point in convincing them to upgrade if they aren't.

Dark_Angel · 3 Apr 2007 at 11:14

pegasus1 said:
I dont agree on the gamming front, i went from a 3700sd @2.65/2x1gig Ram/7800gtx to an [email protected]/2x1gig Ram/7800gtx and the difference in games was shocking. COH, MTW2, COD2 to name but a couple (well three). I know both are OCed but thats not the point.
Worth noting is that my E6300/P5N-E SLI cost less than £200, a 3700SD and comparable mobo would cost pounds £135. Cheeper but considerabley slower.

I think it depends on the resolution you play at and the GPU, if you have a G80 or something, then the CPU will probably limit you if the conroe isn't @ in the high 2GHZ (at the LEAST). 3GHZ+ is far better.

If you are still using an X1900 or something, then A64's won't bottleneck you as much, especially on Supreme Commander.

Having said all that, I have noticed a difference in terms of FPS, but I can't really say that much, cause my old system was an A64 with AGP, so my upgrade route went:

A64 + X800XT

Conroe + 6200 Turbo Cache and wait for the G80 320MB
Conroe @ 3300MHZ + G80

Either way though, conroe is "far faster" in PC terms. I could be wrong on this, but I think it would be about the same jump as an Athlon XP to a A64 based setup.

"far faster" is very much user defined anyways, I mean, to some people the G80 is an completely massive improvement that stomps on the X1900's and G70's, to others its simply "faster".