Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD AM2

kdawson posted about 8 years ago | from the cpu-shootout dept.

197

ThinSkin writes, "ExtremeTech has an extensive performance roundup across the entire line of Intel Core 2 Duo and AMD AM2 CPUs, from the cheap to the ultra-high end. Both companies bring five processors to the table, ranging from $152 to $1,075, with the mid-range CPUs boasting the best in price/performance. From the article: 'It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64s.'" The ExtremeTech article is spread over 10 ad-laden pages. You can read it all on the printer-friendly page, but you'll miss out on the pretty graphs.

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice, but... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093473)

Nice, but can it perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?

Re:Nice, but... (4, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about 8 years ago | (#16093496)

I'm trying to work out where you'd stick your tongue.

Obvious (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093919)

The floor's construction is obviously tongue in groove.

And I'm so ashamed, I'm posting as AC. *sigh*

Clicky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093500)

Nice, but can it perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?
Do you have a clicky for that benchmark?

Come on, this is Slashdot and it's late at night, I'm cold and lonely.

A consumer win! (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 years ago | (#16093475)

Ah, Competition at its finest. Although it seems right now AMD is a bit behind Intel in speed I am glad it is there. Without head to head competition with Intel and AMD Intel will probably still be pushing higher GHZ with little consideration of performance/heat and power usage. I will not be to surprised if in a year or so AMD will be faster then in a couple years Intel will be faster. As well with these to guys fighting it out the consumer wins, as the companies compete for performance and price. I would say it is best not to be in love with either Company because if this processor war is won, we the consumer will loose.

Re:A consumer win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093541)

Agreed. The same can be said for ATI vs. NVidia. Though, in that arena, with DX 10 "regulating" what features can go into the cards, MS wins.

Re:A consumer win! (3, Informative)

Z34107 (925136) | about 8 years ago | (#16094435)

with DX 10 "regulating" what features can go into the cards, MS wins.

Uh, DirectX is free. Writing DirectX problems with the free DirectX SDK [microsoft.com] is also, you guessed it, free.

Microsoft doesn't profit directly from DirectX. Instead, by making Windows a better platform for game development they, shock, get more game developers on Windows.

Also note that Microsoft doesn't decide what features can and can't go into a DirectX 10 card - it sets a minimum featureset for cards that want the sticker. How horrible that a card being marketed as supporting DirectX 10 has to support DirectX 10 functions. (Remember that DirectX emulates hardware functions your videocards lack, allowing games written for it to transcend specific videocards. If the videocard doesn't support any advanced texture, lighting, and whatever else features, you really have a DirectX 10 complaint CPU.)

Re:A consumer win! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093591)

we the consumer will loose.

Loose what? The hounds?

Re:A consumer win! (1)

Khuffie (818093) | about 8 years ago | (#16093602)

I Wanna a Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro

I second that. I've been waiting for today's keynote in the hopes of the core 2 duo update...but all we got were more iPods and Disney movies. Woo! I'm about to give up the wait if nothing changes by next week...anyone got any ideas?

Re:A consumer win! (1)

paganizer (566360) | about 8 years ago | (#16094361)

I purposefully know as little about Macs as possible, as I hate the user mystique thing (My last Apple product was an Apple III), but I thought they would run on Intel CPU's now? I bought a HP 8230 Centrino Core Duo t2300 laptop a couple of months ago that was rated to run Vista (Core duo, Nvidia GeForce 7400 with 256MB, 1gb ram) (not that I'll ever run Vista). The sucker will run anything, and the battery lasts about 2 hours playing oblivion at full resolution. But it seems that if Mac OS will run on Intel CPU's now, it would run on one of these.

Re:A consumer win! (4, Insightful)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | about 8 years ago | (#16093655)

-10 Insightful
Every stinking intel/amd article has this same goddam statement. Who the hell is this insigtful to?

Re:A consumer win! (2, Funny)

feepness (543479) | about 8 years ago | (#16094184)

Every stinking intel/amd article has this same goddam statement. Who the hell is this insigtful to?

Me... I was thinking by moving to a single payer, government sponsored chip manufacturer we could eliminate wasteful overhead, advertising, executive salaries, and that irritating itch to upgrade every 6 months.

You damn Libertarians need to realize the free market isn't for everything...

Re:A consumer win! (1)

Rodyland (947093) | about 8 years ago | (#16093682)

I was personally wondering when (not if - it was bound to happen) Intel would re-take the performance lead. Looks like it's happened quite convincingly. Funny because for a while there I would have sworn that Intel had the best price/performance - they really did trade spots in the market. Still if you're like me and price to get the job done is more important than performance you'll still be buying AMD for some time yet. Although it looks like Intel has also grabbed the price/performance lead too. Watch out AMD fanbois. Although, in terms of price/performance, they are just looking at chip costs. I wonder how it looks when you add mobo and ram to the equation? In my limited recent syste-building experience these components on Intel systems tend to be a bit dearer too.

Re:A consumer win! (1)

HatchedEggs (1002127) | about 8 years ago | (#16093693)

This competition between AMD and Intel has been fantastic to watch for years. I remember back in the day when most of us thought that AMD had taken its last breath, but amazing enough they pulled it out and got back in the game. Regardless, we as consumers are definitely the winners in all of this. Now if only we could get this much talent and competition in everything else. I have to admit though, it was kind of sad to see the Crusoe chip fail as completely as it did. It would have been fun to add a third party to the competition.

Re:A consumer win! (1)

cheshire_cqx (175259) | about 8 years ago | (#16093727)

Isn't Core 2 Duo very energy efficient? I think this was the most exciting aspect of Core 2 Duo. I am so sick of noisy fans, high power usage, and big clunky cases. Give me high performance, low power, and quiet. This is the future of personal computing.

Re:A consumer win!-how so? We have lost choices (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093886)

And I want some *affordable* options for a POWER chip on a mobo that I can use to build a system with. One with a CELL as well, a real hybrid mobo. I am beyond annoyed with x86 amd versus intel duo duopoly nonsense for home desktops, let's see some more variety back in computers like in the olden days. Having two choices that are near identical is not all that much of a choice anymore, they are so close in price and performance and in function as to be almost indistinguishable. And now that apple went over-where's the real choice again? Yes I know you can get a very expensive workstation from IBM or some even more expensive Sun thing, I mean in the affordable range for the non business computer customer.

Re:A consumer win!-how so? We have lost choices (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | about 8 years ago | (#16094462)

Well, what's stopping you from opening up shop, hiring techs and chip engineers, building your own fab, and competing with everyone?

  Oh yeah...that's right. The billions of dollars it would require. I knew there was a catch.

Re:A consumer win! (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 8 years ago | (#16093946)

I agree. Everyone should be happy to see both pushing each other.

Actually when you calculate performance per dollar, it is closer than most think right now. This article is comparing a $200 Intel processor to a $150 AMD processor. When you compare the $200 AMD to the $200 Intel, not only are they neck-and-neck, but in certain benchmarks, the AMD comes out on top.

Imagine that.

Perhaps those that read articles and think for themselves will see such things. Those that only read headlines and troll won't.

Intel does have a very good processor line on their hands with the Core Duo 2. Even the AMD fans admit that. No one has said otherwise. It is the Intel fans who refused to acknowledge how far they were behind for 4 years. Now both are striving to be the top-dog. AMD claims they will be the best with the 4x4 line soon, and no doubt Intel will respond with a new line of their own.

Meanwhile performance is going up considerably, and prices down at the same time. I built my AMD 3000 system two years ago, and I can't believe what you can build now for the same price.

Nice effort Intel, but AMD still takes the lead. (1)

neophytepwner (992971) | about 8 years ago | (#16094068)

If anyone took the care to notice AMD Opteron still beats Xeon. Dual-core Xeons will then be trumped when dual-dore opterons come out in 2007. Check the site http://multicore.amd.com/en/Products/Availability/ [amd.com]

Re:A consumer win! (1)

JavaBear (9872) | about 8 years ago | (#16094362)

Intel and AMD; The perfect example on why competition is good, and de facto monopolies aren't.

Until AMD came up with their Athlon line Intel chips were overpriced and underperforming, and all of a sudden when competition came along, they managed to push towards he GHz barriar surprisingly fast...

Re:A consumer win! (1)

one_red_eye (962010) | about 8 years ago | (#16094515)

It's nice that there is fierce competition between chip makers. If only this worked with software makers. The only thing keeping M$ alive is the fact the computer makers like HP and Dell don't offer a real choice of operating systems. "Windows XP Home or Windows XP Pro or just go home"

crypto work (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 8 years ago | (#16093485)

:-) crypto benches [libtomcrypt.com] .

Seems core2 is closer to Opteron but not quite there.

Tom

Re:crypto work (1)

gumbi west (610122) | about 8 years ago | (#16093557)

The performance is identical to slighly Opteron with Core2 decrypting much faster for AES / MD5 / SHA2. Remind me why I care about the others?

Re:crypto work (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 8 years ago | (#16093572)

Um, Opteron is not slower at any hashes than the Core2. It's also faster at most PK work.

That said, this is Intels ... ahem ... ****NEW**** core. Opteron is more than 3 years old.

The results show that Intel is finally catching up in ops/cycle performance. Which is nice for a change...

Tom

Re:crypto work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093826)

Last I checked, a E6400 2.13GHz was about as fast a 5000+ 2.4GHz...

Re:crypto work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093570)

The Core 2 Duo used in that comparison is the low-end E6300. I don't know much about Opterons, but I wouldn't expect 2.6GHz to represent the low-end.

Re:crypto work (2, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 8 years ago | (#16093579)

Clock speed won't change the cycle counts. I'm not counting wall time here. So you can expect that if AES takes 247 cycles @1.83GHz then it will probably take 247 cycles @2.93GHz.

Tom

Who cares about cycles? (1)

BlueBiker (690984) | about 8 years ago | (#16093689)

Performance/Watt or Performance/$$$ matters, what difference does it make how many cycles are required to accomplish a given task?

Re:Who cares about cycles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093974)

Well, by knowing the cycle count you can easily calculate the other two. By easily I mean anyone with half a clue.

Re:Who cares about cycles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16094274)

That half a clue includes knowing how long its going to take to get the data from cache/ram?

Re:crypto work (2, Insightful)

qbwiz (87077) | about 8 years ago | (#16093761)

That depends on if all the data is in cache, and if the speed of the cache increases at the same rate as the speed of the processor.

Re:crypto work (1)

renoX (11677) | about 8 years ago | (#16094428)

Thanks for your correction, the parent was so wrong, it's not funny..

Re:crypto work (1)

Toveling (834894) | about 8 years ago | (#16093592)

That benchmark pits a 2.6ghz Opteron vs a 1.8ghz Core 2. The Core 2 stands up very admirably, and that's the lowest of the Core 2's. I'd love to see it redone with a 2.4 or the 2.9ghz EE.

Re:crypto work (1)

Browzer (17971) | about 8 years ago | (#16093851)

How would it compare to Via's PadLock?

Re:crypto work (2, Insightful)

Wavicle (181176) | about 8 years ago | (#16093984)

Seems to me you have an odd comparison. You took the lowest end Core 2 Duo with the smallest L2 cache and pitted it against a high end AMD offering. And they about tied. What does this tell us?

The E6300 costs about $230. How much does the Opteron 885 cost?

Re:crypto work (1)

this great guy (922511) | about 8 years ago | (#16094521)

These benchmarks measure the number of processor cycles. Therefore the clock speed is mostly irrelevant. FYI it is rather common to count cycles when speaking about the efficiency of crypto/hashing algorithms.

No 64-bit benchmarks (5, Insightful)

David Jao (2759) | about 8 years ago | (#16093503)

I'm disappointed to see that as usual the review contains no mention of 64-bit performance. Does anyone know any place that provides 64-bit benchmarks for core 2 duo?

As much as it's done for us in the last 20 years, 32-bit x86 is not the future. Linux was AMD64-ready three years ago and Windows Vista which is just around the corner already puts more emphasis on the x86-64 platform than x86. Reviewing the 32-bit performance of core 2 duo is like reviewing Pentium processers based on 16-bit performance. Let's get some forward looking reviews instead of backward looking reviews, please!

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (4, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 8 years ago | (#16093514)

http://libtomcrypt.com/ltc113.html [libtomcrypt.com]

crypto work done in 64-bit mode on the Core 2.

Tom

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16094496)

Hey you might be interested by my 64-bit implementation of MD5 [epita.fr] . It seems slightly faster than yours (4.8 clocks per byte on Opteron).

No nforce 5 intel (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 8 years ago | (#16093561)

the review missing that there is no nforce 5 boards for intel out there.

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093795)

64bit benchmarks???!? how many 64bit applications are you running/ are there in usful production?

everyone's got the 64bit crazy Ive had 64bit technology a long time can you say risc?

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (5, Insightful)

David Jao (2759) | about 8 years ago | (#16093895)

64bit benchmarks???!? how many 64bit applications are you running/ are there in usful production?

everyone's got the 64bit crazy Ive had 64bit technology a long time can you say risc?

This is clearly a troll post, since you denigrate the availability of 64-bit computing in your first paragraph and then contradict yourself by claiming you jumped on the 64-bit bandwagon before everyone else, but I'll squash your post anyway.

Only a windows user (or possibly a Mac user) would treat 64-bit computing as useless or unavailable. Linux has been available in 64-bit versions since the days of the DEC Alpha, or since 2003 if you count only AMD64. Almost every Linux application benefits from recompiling for AMD64 as opposed to x86, because of the increased register space, and the nature of open source guarantees availablity of such versions. Compute-intensive applications such as cryptography (ssh/scp over gigabit ethernet) and media encoding (ogg, mp3, mpeg) exhibit performance gains of over 100% with 64-bit operations owing to the quadratic nature of block multiplication.

Scientific applications such as Mathematica and Maple, which I require for my job, have been available for AMD64 almost from the beginning days of the hardware platform, and gain rather a lot from AMD64 not only in terms of CPU performance but also from the larger virtual address space.

Even if all of these things weren't true and Linux didn't exist, the fact is that Windows Vista (vaporware jokes aside) really is coming out in five months and really does spell the end of 32-bit computing for mainstream performance applications. Windows Vista isn't some half-unfinished 64/32 bit mixture like Windows 95 was a half-unfinished 32/16 bit mixture -- Vista is 64-bit through and through.

The fact that your elitist risc platforms had 64-bit addressing some 30 years ago is not relevant to this discussion. Like it or not, x86 has "won" the platform battles, and x86-64 (unlike Alpha, IA64, Sparc) is the first and only 64-bit computing platform that will be relevant for general purpose computing.

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (1)

mfh (56) | about 8 years ago | (#16094357)

Your reply to the other poster is interesting enough, however it's flawed in the sense that most computer users will not make use of the feasible 64bit performance increases with chunked data, because most computer users want to play WoW, online poker, use MSN, surf the web and write troll posts on Slashdot (not unlike this one). The point is... Techgage's benchmark of 64bit half-life 2 says it all [techgage.com] when it says, "Surprisingly enough, I didn't see an ounce of benefit from the 64-Bit."

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (2, Interesting)

this great guy (922511) | about 8 years ago | (#16094580)

This is Slashdot. The GP, I and probably a lot of other readers [slashdot.org] who are not average users care about performance in 64-bit mode. See, for example, I write 64-bit assembly code optimized for AMD processors. So far I have never had the chance to evaluate a Core 2 CPU. So, like the GP, I would like to see 64-bit benchmarks of Core 2 CPUs. Is it so hard to understand ?

Re:No 64-bit benchmarks (2, Informative)

DrDitto (962751) | about 8 years ago | (#16094397)

Thats nice. But most users use non-scientific applications that will see very little benefit from 64-bit ops. The extra register space is really not a big deal with a superscalar out-of-order where register renaming and high L1 bandwidth keeps the instructions moving. Stack spills/fills nearly always hit in the L1 and performance nowadays is becoming dominated by cache misses. 64-bit is certainly necessary to move beyond 4GB of address space (with segment tricks), but most users will see no benefit from 64-bit ALU operations. In fact, 32-bit datapaths can be clocked faster than 64-bit datapaths.

I guess someone needs to tell the new guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093510)

About the Slashdot kickback system? You don't post direct links to ad-free versions in the summary!

Fucking hilarious. (1, Offtopic)

Spazntwich (208070) | about 8 years ago | (#16093540)

Slashdot should make a habit of linking to the printer friendly version when someone submits their own site. I love it.

I take it back. (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | about 8 years ago | (#16093562)

The printer friendly link doesn't seem to be working. Meaning the people at ExtremeTech noticed Slashdot's evil attempt at denying them ad revenue and changed things around.

Shame on them. This article is a troll.

Re:I take it back. (1)

suggsjc (726146) | about 8 years ago | (#16093948)

I agree that having multiple pages just to increase ad impressions is a little annoying, but why do people gripe about a site trying to profit from its work/research/journalism/whatever? How else is it going to make money/pay for the bandwidth that slashdot/anyone generates? Get off your soapbox!

Note to Slashdot...Nobody cares (0, Troll)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 8 years ago | (#16093569)

Processors have become a commodity. You buy as much processor performance as you need or can afford. The Intel and AMD processors are all great right now...well all except the old Intel P4 and Celeron stuff but that will be mostly gone in a few months anyway. Move along...there's no story here.

Re:Note to Slashdot...Nobody cares (1)

Khuffie (818093) | about 8 years ago | (#16093623)

Erm. Maybe you don't care. But if I can buy a mid-range Core 2 Duo for $350 that gives me equivalent performance to an AMD highend processer at $700, I'm damn sure I care.

Re:Note to Slashdot...Nobody cares (5, Insightful)

tempest69 (572798) | about 8 years ago | (#16093647)

Processors have become a commodity. You buy as much processor performance as you need or can afford. The Intel and AMD processors are all great right now...well all except the old Intel P4 and Celeron stuff but that will be mostly gone in a few months anyway. Move along...there's no story here.

ok, I'll bite....

This is slashdot. We look at specs and drool. We crave machines with 64 gigs of ram, and a solid state hard drive in the petabyte range. If there is some way to make things blinky or shiny, someone is wondering how much longer their kids can put off braces. If someone comes out with a way to make IE 7 beta 4 load pages 3% faster, someone is going to be running tests all night long. It's news for nerds, stuff that matters. Go troll on digg or break.com and you'll have a point, but not here.

All in all I'm glad that Intel has decided to retake the lead in the price/performance war, AMD needs a new kick in the pants.

Storm

Re:Note to Slashdot...Nobody cares (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | about 8 years ago | (#16093891)

$DIETY bless the blinky bits, there's a lot of joy to be had at watching the flickering lights of a multi-disk array that you built yourself. Watching in real-time as different disks get used to service requests can be a bit mesmerizing. (Plus it points out a possible performance issue with mdadm's RAID10 implementation when disk 0 has a higher utilization then the other disks.) Of course, I used to be entranced by the lights on the front of my 14.4Kbps modem.

All in all I'm glad that Intel has decided to retake the lead in the price/performance war, AMD needs a new kick in the pants.

Indeed, prices for AMD processors have been a bit stagnant for the past few years. I think the Opterons topped out at 2.6GHz, but are very expensive. If nothing else, at least the new Intel Core Duo chips forced them to finally drop prices on the X2's. Now if we can just see some price pressure on the Opteron dual-cores I'd be a very happy geek.

Re:Note to Slashdot...Nobody cares (1)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 8 years ago | (#16094289)

If someone comes out with a way to make IE 7 beta 4 load pages 3% faster, someone is going to be running tests all night long. It's news for nerds, stuff that matters.

I'd agree with you if this was actually new news but it's not and I don't. It was news a few months ago when Intel came out with the Conroe and enlarged the hardware performance envelope a little bit but it's not news now and so it doesn't matter. Software is waaaaay behind the silicon. It's the software news that matters right now and there's not much of it.

Re:Note to Slashdot...Nobody cares (1)

courtarro (786894) | about 8 years ago | (#16093735)

So how are you supposed to know how much performance you're getting for X money without benchmarks like these? Don't be so arrogant.

Isn't this a bit old? (4, Insightful)

LIGC (974596) | about 8 years ago | (#16093571)

Weren't there about 20 Core 2 Duo reviews/comparisons with Athlon 64 X2's on July 23 when Core 2 officially launched? We've known these results for longer than a month.

Re:Isn't this a bit old? (2, Funny)

Frogbert (589961) | about 8 years ago | (#16093848)

Yes but for those of us with Core 2 Duo systems it just gets sweeter each and every time we read about it.

I have a better processor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093589)

I don't care what anyone says, the Zilog Z80 kicks both their butts.

What use is a processor if you can't program it blindfolded with a soldering iron?

6502, biznatch! (3, Funny)

BitwizeGHC (145393) | about 8 years ago | (#16093634)

The CPU of the true pimp. Nothing matches the Commodizzo' Sitty-Fizzo'!

Why even bother? (-1, Troll)

JustNiz (692889) | about 8 years ago | (#16093610)

AMD's current range of CPUs can't get anywhere near intel core 2 and AMD are now dead in the water. Everyone knows that except the AMD fanboys.

Re:Why even bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093650)

I'm looking to build a quiet box running 64 bit Linux. I haven't seen yet where Core Duo 2 beats the AMD64 Watt for Watt, dollar for dollar and dB for dB. That being said it is great to see Intel responding to competition.

Re:Why even bother? (2, Informative)

JustNiz (692889) | about 8 years ago | (#16093852)

I'm not going hunting for the links, but all power consumption comparisons I've seen show intel in the lead over AMD now in terms of power consumption vs. performance.

I'm not sure about dollar for dollar any more, AMD stuff is going cheap now because they've lost the lead, especially if you don't mind relatively poor performance.

dB for db? since when did processors make noise? If you're talking about their respective heat output for equivalent performance, again it seems intel are now ahead. The core 2 runs cool enough that he cpu fan can be easily replaced with a fanless (silent) alternative anyway.

Re:Why even bother? (2, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 8 years ago | (#16093672)

competing companies often take turns being the technological leader; rick romero reports at 11

I have lost track (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093629)

of which CPUs are doing what with who in which versions. I think I gave up the arms-race about a year ago. But today I looked at hardware prices and found out that my 2 year old 3.4 GHz Intel motherboard with AGP bus is hopelessly outdated, and that you can get a dual core Intel CPU cheap. I know this is how it always have been with hardware ever since my first 10MHz XT. But for once I haven't felt the need for more speed.
I don't play that many games anymore so that might be the reason.

Re:I have lost track (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | about 8 years ago | (#16093747)

Not playing games is the reason. You're only using applications and most applications will be speedy with a 3.4 GHz machine. The applications that take 45 minutes+ could be speeded up, but will you notice it if you are not at the computer while it is processing?

I'm a PC gamer in need of an upgrade. I'm seriously considering going back to consoles since online gaming with them has really taken off. In that case, I probably would not upgrade my computer anytime soon.

Re:I have lost track (1)

Technician (215283) | about 8 years ago | (#16094486)

But today I looked at hardware prices and found out that my 2 year old 3.4 GHz Intel motherboard with AGP bus is hopelessly outdated, and that you can get a dual core Intel CPU cheap.

I just wished I could wave the same magic over my 0.001 Gig Internet connection. A super fast system that can render full motion video is fine as long as the video isn't Buffering 02% Complete Buffering 03% complete....

What are ads? (1)

DongleFondle (655040) | about 8 years ago | (#16093641)

"The ExtremeTech article is spread over 10 ad-laden pages. You can read it all on the printer-friendly page, but you'll miss out on the pretty graphs."

Or you can just browse with Firefox and install the AdBlock Plus and AdBlock Filterset.G Updater extensions. Hell I don't even remember what the web was like with ads. I haven't punched a monkey in years. Well, a digital monkey anyways.

Re:What are ads? (2, Funny)

Rodyland (947093) | about 8 years ago | (#16093654)

You must be thinking of spanking the monkey. Punching the monkey doesn't sound as fun.

Hardware Virual Machine (1)

The_Morgan (89220) | about 8 years ago | (#16093669)

I want one of these companies to release a complete implemetation for hardware virtual machines. I want my Windows games to run full bore, right next to my linux dev environment.

Maybe I'll just have to wait another 5 years for Xen to come of age.

Re:Hardware Virual Machine (1)

grozzie2 (698656) | about 8 years ago | (#16093860)

if it's a hardware implementation, well, guess it's not a virtual anymore then is it .....

Overclocking... (2, Interesting)

steppin_razor_LA (236684) | about 8 years ago | (#16093701)

The last Intel processor I bought for home use was a P2. I recently purchased a Core 2 Duo 6400 and I am *so happy* with it. As discussed at this article:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=28 02 [anandtech.com]

The Core 2 Duos are tremendously and easily overclockable. I upped my performance 25% by changing the FSB from 266 to 333. While this sounds like a significant overclock, for the Core 2 Duo it is actually rather conservative. You juse switch to DDR-667 memory. I'm using the stock Intel cooler and my chips are running just fine temperature wise. People who are more ambitious are going for 400+. When you combine the inherent performance and value in the line with the ease of significant overclocking, AMD isn't even in the same ball game anymore.

Re:Overclocking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16093729)

> While this sounds like a significant overclock, for the Core 2 Duo it is actually rather conservative. You juse switch to DDR-667 memory.

So you're saying that overclocking means using higher-grade hardware that your cpu and motherboard are already speced for?

Re:Overclocking... (1)

cryptoluddite (658517) | about 8 years ago | (#16094216)

For about the price of just your processor I got a 2.4ghz Athlon 64 processor, 800 mhz ddr2, am2 motherboard, and geforce 7600gt. This entire system draws 100-102 watts when idle including 3 hard drives (according to kill-a-watt). CPU runs at ~35C @ 1100 rpm and is silent. This isn't a top-notch system of course, but it's pretty decent.

I'm glad I had a dual core pentium d at work (ie that I didn't pay for so didn't have to rationalize) to see that the vast majority of the time the extra core doesn't get you jack. Maybe +5% overall would be a pretty generous estimate. Sometimes I'll be doing something and it kicks in and that's cool, but it's so rare that until commodity chips are all dual core it's quite a waste unless you really need it (for example video editing... on your Macintosh). Maybe Windows really needs it, I don't know, but for linux the main benefit is that emerge world overnight, while I'm not even there, is noticeably faster.

Also, last time I ptrace single-stepped some common programs it was something like 95% of the time was spent in the last 1000 instructions. So yeah, extra cache will help some (but maybe not so much as the benchmarks will have you believe), and speed freaks should go for core 2 duo. But AMD is still a decent choice for price/performance.

Re:Overclocking... (1)

steppin_razor_LA (236684) | about 8 years ago | (#16094363)

It's completely true that at the "lower" end of the spectrum (i.e. pre core 2 duo), that you get better bang for your back w/ AMD. However, if you are planning on spending ~$200+ on a processor, then you clearly get more value out of the Core 2 Duo.

As to the value of dual cores, I'm a huge fan. I assume that for most games it doesn't make much of a difference, but if you are power using your computer (i.e. doing development work or running other CPU intensive applications, its a godsend).

Interesting enough when I play Star Wars: Empire at War, I notice that that both cores seem to be getting a fair amount of activity. I wonder if more games are starting to take advantage of...

Hello and welcome to last month! (1)

cdw38 (1001587) | about 8 years ago | (#16093768)

Thanks to ExtremeTech for becoming the 519th hardware website to make such a proclamation. I normally just lurk but I felt compelled to comment given the fact that something like this made the front page. Did you guys just hear about the Lebanese-Israeli ceasefire too?

Re:Hello and welcome to last month! (1)

Glasswire (302197) | about 8 years ago | (#16093902)

This will still be necessary as long as there are AMD fanboys out there still living in denial.

Not denial, ignorance. (1)

twitter (104583) | about 8 years ago | (#16094346)

This will still be necessary as long as there are AMD fanboys out there still living in denial.

Without 64 bit benchmarks, you can't make up your mind [slashdot.org] , unless you are some kind of Wintel fanboy who's ignored the Vista hype and does not think 64 bit will be practical for years.

X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (1)

bornbitter (813458) | about 8 years ago | (#16093769)

In reading the review, I came to the end and the author stated that the core duo lineup routed the X2 line... But I don't remeber seeing an X2 processor... I glanced back through the linup, but didn't see an X2 listed.
    Did they just omit the X2 part of the processor line, or did I miss something, or is the author jumping to conclusions?
    Someone correct me, but if they were comparing core 2 duo processors to single core 64's it doesn't seem like a consistent benchmark.
Did I fall asleep somewhere between the ads? Or is this a mistake?

Re:X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (2, Informative)

cdw38 (1001587) | about 8 years ago | (#16093793)

Every AM2 processor is dual-core, or "X2."

Re:X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (1)

bornbitter (813458) | about 8 years ago | (#16093838)

...um... if that is the case, how do you explain these?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Cate gory=34&N=2010340343+50001028+1051720996+130282027 6&Submit=ENE&Manufactory=1028&SubCategory=343 [newegg.com]
You will see the listing of "single core" under each of the Athlon processors, along with the sempron,(which I know were not tested).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16819103631 [newegg.com]
Here you see an athlon AM2 3800+ that is single core. ...so which ones were they using? I can accept that they were beat, I just think it was kinda muddled... did they ever say that they were using X2's? Like I said, I think I missed it.

Re:X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (1)

cdw38 (1001587) | about 8 years ago | (#16094011)

Except the frequency of the Orleans 3800+ is 2.4 Ghz, whereas the Windsor (and Manchester before it) clocks in at 2.0 Ghz (which is clearly pointed out in the article). And to the other replies I meant every AM2 tested...as in there is not a single-core AM2 4200+, 4600+, or 5000+. The only processor where you could even present an argument is for the 3800+, and the frequency clears that right up.

Re:X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (1)

BigFootApe (264256) | about 8 years ago | (#16093842)

No. AM2 Windsor is dual core, AM2 Orleans is single core (so is Manila, but that's Sempron, not Athlon).

Re:X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (1)

Unicorn Giggles (981101) | about 8 years ago | (#16093934)

no, that is simply not true, you have brought shame upon your family.
you disgust me man-ape.

Re:X2's? He said they routed X2's.. (1)

Holi (250190) | about 8 years ago | (#16093903)

Well if you compare the prices on price watch and the prices in the article you'll see that they are all x2's, or he way over paid for single cores.

Where are they pricing these chips? (2, Informative)

SeaFox (739806) | about 8 years ago | (#16093779)

Both companies bring five processors to the table, ranging from $152 to $1,075, with the mid-range CPUs boasting the best in price/performance.

Looks to me like AM2 starts a little lower than [newegg.com] $152.

That's a single core chip (1, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | about 8 years ago | (#16093983)

Therefore an invalid comparison according to TFA which only looked at the dual core offerings.

Re:Where are they pricing these chips? (1)

CyDharttha (939997) | about 8 years ago | (#16094001)

I imagine they meant to say AM2 X2, which does start at ~$152 [newegg.com]

Re:Where are they pricing these chips? (1)

jared9900 (231352) | about 8 years ago | (#16094016)

They start with the AMD 64 3800+ not 3000+.

What "pretty graphs" ? (1)

slowbad (714725) | about 8 years ago | (#16093816)

You can read it all on the printer-friendly page, but you'll miss out on the pretty graphs.

Pretty graphs -- I don't think so.

A fuzzy and completely unusable 21KB GIF for "Half Life 2" is the biggest graph on the last page before the conclusion.

so what if the site is ad heavy.... (1)

Indy1 (99447) | about 8 years ago | (#16093849)

just use adblock with firefox. Anyone who doesnt nuke banner ads deserves what they get.

Screwed up comparison (4, Insightful)

Jerry Coffin (824726) | about 8 years ago | (#16093972)

Quite a few people seem to have missed what seems to be a pretty obvious problem: the choices they've made as to what Intel processor to compare to what AMD processor just don't make sense. Look at the price table:

Intel Frequency Price AMD Frequency Price
E6300 1.83GHz $190 3800+ 2.0GHz $152
E6400 2.13GHz $230 4200+ 2.2GHz $187
E6600 2.40GHz $360 4600+ 2.4GHz $253
E6700 2.67GHz $559 5000+ 2.6GHz $346
X6800 2.93GHz $1,075 FX-62 2.8GHz $825
In every case, the Intel processor more expensive than the AMD to which they compare it. The Intel E6700 is over 60% more expensive than the AMD 5000+ they consider comparable. The Intel E6300 is not only more expensive than the AMD 3800+, but also more expensive than AMD's next step up, the 4200+.

Given their prices, the E6300 should obviously be compared to the 4200+ rather than to the 3800+. Looking at this particular pairing, rather than the nearly clean sweep for Intel, they each win some and lose some. If you simply count wins, the Intel wins more than the AMD -- but to mean much, you need to look at what they win at, not just how many different benchmarks they win. Just for example, PCMark05 goes 3:1 in favor of the E6300 -- but quite frankly, none of PCMark05 really means a thing.

Unless money is no object to you, the two lines look pretty closely matched. In video encoding and rendering tasks, Intel wins quite easily. In the ScienceMark scores, AMD wins pretty easily. Elsewhere, a lot are really too close to call based on the data provided. There are a number of cases in which each wins by less than 2%. It's impossible to say for sure without knowing things like the standard deviations on these scores, but there's a pretty fair chance they have no statistical significance at all.

Re:Screwed up comparison (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about 8 years ago | (#16094186)

Nope, just look at the 4 graphs to compare any pair of processors you like (on 3 different pages: 1 [extremetech.com] 2 [extremetech.com] 3 [extremetech.com] )

At the low end, the E6300 at $190 beat the $187 AMD 4200+ in all tests, and also beat the $253 4600+ in 3 out of 4 (with the 4th test extremely close).

At the midrange, the $360 E6600 beats even the $825 FX-62 in all 4 tests. That is bad, bad, bad for AMD.

At the high end, AMD simply has no answer to the $559 E6700 or the $1075 X6800.

Granted, none of their graphs shows the ScienceMark. But overall the results seem pretty one-sided to me. I'm surprised AMD hasn't dropped prices more.

Re:Screwed up comparison (1)

Jerry Coffin (824726) | about 8 years ago | (#16094565)

Look again at the first graph on the second page you've linked.

Re:Screwed up comparison (1)

bruno.fatia (989391) | about 8 years ago | (#16094330)

In case you haven't noticed, they were matching clock speeds.
E6300 with 3800+ (1.83GHz vs 2.0GHz)
E6400 with 4200+ (2.13GHz vs 2.2GHz)
E6600 with 4600+ (2.40GHz vs 2.4GHz)
See?
Also if you look at the graphs you'll see that E6600 beats FX-62 in pretty much everything and isn't nearly half FX-62's price.

Re:Screwed up comparison (1)

Jerry Coffin (824726) | about 8 years ago | (#16094581)

I can buy matching up clock speeds as a possibility, but even assuming it's true, why does it make sense? If I'm buying a CPU, I'm concerned with what I'm going to get for my money. Anybody who still hasn't noticed that clock speed means nearly nothing needs to find a different line of work.

Re:Screwed up comparison (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 8 years ago | (#16094668)

Comparing performance, I can only see this: (hopefully with a minimum of errors)

- SysMark, a $230 E6400 performs nearly as a $825 FX-52.
- PCMark05, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
- ScienceMark, $230 E6400 similar to $187 4200+.
- 3DS Max 7, $230 E6400 between the $346 and $825 Athlons.
- Cinebench, $230 E6400 a little better than a $253 4600+.
- 3DS Max 7 (rendering), $230 E6400 between $253 and $346 Athlons.
- LightWave, no Athlons are close to touching even a $190 Core 2 Duo.
- POVRay, $230 E6400 as $825 FX-52.
- After Effects, $230 E6400 as $825 FX-52.
- Video encoding, $230 E6400 almost as $825 FX-52, and E6600 being better overall.
- 3DMark, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
- FEAR, $230 E6400 better than $346 5000+, not far from $825 FX-52.
- Call of Duty, all Core 2 Duo's seem better than any Athlon, at least in low res where gfx dependency is lower
- Doom 3, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.
- HL2, $230 E6400 similar to $825 FX-52.
- FS2004, $230 E6400 similar to $346 5000+.

Socket consideration (1)

wysiwia (932559) | about 8 years ago | (#16094436)

As the owner of AMD socket 939 processor I'm going to skip any AM2 socket mainboard. It's time that processor manufactures realize the time to change sockets each year is over. Either they are able to foresee the socket interface for the next 5 years or they have to provide processors for any socket within that time line. The next mainboard I buy is the one which comes closed to this goal and mainboard manufactures are well advise to request this from their processor suppliers. I'll stick to this policy since any processor above a Athlon XP 3000+ is more that sufficient for any task I can envision (including gaming).

O. Wyss

imagine (0)

1 reply beneath your (961840) | about 8 years ago | (#16094501)

a Beowulf cluster of these!

2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo vs. 2.4 GHz Athlon A64 X2 + FAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16094648)

2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo vs. 2.4 GHz Athlon A64 X2, both running FAH (Folding@home)
The Intel counterpart does seem to be quicker than AMD one.
http://forum.folding-community.org/viewtopic.php?p =142577#142577 [folding-community.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>