AMD vs INTEL
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- Boz0
CafeSuaDa..Core Duo processors are LAPTOP processors they do not have 64bit instructions and honestly I will tell you that we won't need that crap for a while. The hardware itself doesn't support more then 4gb of memory in laptops anyways, so 64bit doesn't mean much.
Desktop versions of all new Intel processors indeed are 64bit. So don't listen to Chunkfield, the dude doesn't know what he's talking about.
The new Intel Core processors (that's what we are talking about) come in 3 variations Merom, Conroe and desktop XE version of Conroe.
Some benchmarks that were confirmed by Anandtech crew from March 2006 Developer conference show the real difference:
http://www.hothardware.com/viewa…
http://www.pureoverclock.com/sto…
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchip…
http://www.hexus.net/content/ite…
- Boz0
And I forgot to mention.
Here's a quote from Anandtech:"With Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800, our performance expectations are reset once more. In all of the Content Creation tests, the Core 2 Extreme outpaces the FX-62 by anywhere from 27% to 28%."
As you know FX62 is currently the fastest AMD processors for desktop. And this revision is actually AM2, which means it's using DDR2 memory.
Enough said.
- mbr0
I know nothing about the intricacies of the new chips, but thought this could clarify things further:
" For the first time, Intel has specifically created one unified Core architecture for all categories: Conroe (desktops), Merom (notebooks), and Woodcrest (workstation/servers). All are based on Intel's Core technologies, and all three are 64-bit-capable dual-core processors with shared enhancements. "
- joyride0
chunkfield you are maybe the worst case of AMD fanboy that I've seen recently LOL>
Boz
(Jul 8 06, 12:09)This from an Intel fanboy LOL
Keep in mind price. Usually the newest latest fastest processors can cost $600+ for processor alone, plus limited number of MB's, limited tech support because they are so new.
- Boz0
joyride2..no fanboyism here..I'm the type of person that asks for performance..and it has nothing to do with the companies. I own 2 AMD computers, they are both X2 systems and I bought them because they serve their purpose and were faster then Intel for what I needed it to be. I actually don't like my Xeons Noconas, and I was ready to buy Opterons, but Woodcrests are just so good, so I've decided to wait. It's all about the speed.
I'm just stating facts. Chunkfield is a fanboy because despite numerous reputable sites testing new Intel generation processors and reporting they beat the hell out of any AMD, he goes and keeps recommending AMD. The point here is what our NT friend needs and he asked what the best processor for Content Creation is on the market. Currently, it's Intel and everybody in the world agrees, except a few hardcore fanboys that can't get over the fact that there's something out there better then their beloved AMD.
As far as price, please go and look at the pricing for new Intels, they are in the same price range as any AMD processor on the market but one step up performance wise.
Just an example:
New Intel Conroe 2.67Ghz (beating FX60 oc'ed to 2.8Ghz) costs around $500. FX60 is still $700 something bucks, though it's important to mention that 2.6Ghz Conroe is there to match maybe X2 4800+/5000+ in the whole scheme of things even though it beats the hell out of it performance wise. X2 4800+ is still at close to $700. This is for the AM2 version.Woodcrest for example 3.0Ghz 4mb L2 cache, 1333Mhz FSB is $850, while Opteron 285 is around that price range too. Opteron 285 is again no match for Woodcrest.
Here's the pricing for the Conroe processors if you are interested:
So as I said no fanboyism here, it's just common sense. Faster, Cheaper, Cooler, better overclocking..how can you not like it. It has nothing to do with me prefering Intel or AMD.
- joyride0
lol... no worries Boz. Personally i don't like intel as a corporation. Yeah, the new processors are faster. But i fully expect AMD to come back with an answer. I just never liked the fact that intel was always pushing processor speed as the end all be all for performance. While AMD just keep pluggin away at efficiency. They've come up against a giant and got to where they are at because of the product. Not cute little ads, and marketing making people think, 3.2 is better then 2.2 so the intel must be better. Plus, for content creation, you don't need the latest fastest greatest computer. IMO its better to get 6 months old latest greatest. More bang for the buck, better user reviews & tech tweak/build guides. Some components just don't work well together. They might be individually the fastest xxxxxx but when put all these things into case sometimes things just don't match well. But anyway, tons of opinions on building computers. Just be sure to do research and have a need/goal defined... oh and cash & time to get it all together.
- mbr0
Normally I buy the older stuff (by a notch or two) but with these I am betting it'll be different. It's the multi tasking improvements that have me interested.
I am just going off of a few preliminary reports on performance. So it's not just a faster processor, but a better one.