AMD Cpu's...
Thread Starter
bboy Wesley West
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,390
Likes: 0
From: six-five-o
AMD Cpu's...
Athlon 64 versus the Athlon dual core (x2)
what do you guys think? the rig is mainly just for gaming, no crazy video editing or anything.
i also have a limited budget too
what do you guys think? the rig is mainly just for gaming, no crazy video editing or anything.
i also have a limited budget too
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
Sorry but this is not true. Intel got the jump on dual core processors but now that AMD has their X2 out there AMD has caught back up and surpassed Intel in many areas.
Here's a recent comparison of the AMD Turion X2 versus a Core Duo T2400 (laptop chips)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/...ed/page12.html
Here's a recent comparison of the AMD Turion X2 versus a Core Duo T2400 (laptop chips)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/...ed/page12.html
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Did you read the article or just look at (some of) the pretty pictures?
However, compared to an Intel platform based on the Core Duo and the company's own GM 945 chipset, the combination of AMD CPU and ATI chipset is inferior in terms of battery time and multitasking performance. Therefore, under equal conditions, it can only be regarded as the second choice - if it is worth getting at all. The Core Duo 2, Intel's next generation of laptop processors is already at hand, and first measurements show that the Core Duo 2 is even more powerful while not consuming more power.
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
Yes I did read the article - pertty pictures too...the Intel chip did not win every comparison test as it doesn't meet with your statement that "there is no reason to by AMD" - where the first AMD's first dual core chip has some performance advantages on the Core Duo at this time.
As for the battery comment Intel is better right now but not as far ahead as you think. In fact heat/battery life was a lower priority with Intel until AMD started making major headway in that area.
As for the battery comment Intel is better right now but not as far ahead as you think. In fact heat/battery life was a lower priority with Intel until AMD started making major headway in that area.
As you can see, the performance of a Turion 64 X2 platform such as the HP Compaq nx6325 can easily keep pace with a comparable Intel system. The battery life is more difficult to interpret, though. Superficially, Intel seems to be far ahead, but if you consider that the battery in the Dell laptop has a much higher total energy than the HP systems, the situation looks different.
Last edited by jaje; Dec 12, 2006 at 08:32 PM.
Thread Starter
bboy Wesley West
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 15,390
Likes: 0
From: six-five-o
except this is for a desktop...we already have a dell inspiron with the core duo and while it runs fine, our other celeron 1.6 runs up to par in regular tasks.
Same goes with the X2 versus the athlon 64. the single core processors actually outperformed the duo's in terms of gaming.
Same goes with the X2 versus the athlon 64. the single core processors actually outperformed the duo's in terms of gaming.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
The core 2s are still better on desktops.
And yes, there's no reason to buy AMD. They cost about the same, they perform about the same, and they consume more power. They have no advantages and some small disadvantages.
And yes, there's no reason to buy AMD. They cost about the same, they perform about the same, and they consume more power. They have no advantages and some small disadvantages.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
Oh really?
Price/Performance
The only place that AMD even compares to Intel in price/performance is with the 64 x2 3800+.
Just for shits and giggles, performance/watt
Not even close.
AMD is only price competitive if you want to buy a processor, any processor, and you don't care how fast it is, or how much power it draws.
Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ootout_13.html
Price/Performance
The only place that AMD even compares to Intel in price/performance is with the 64 x2 3800+.
Just for shits and giggles, performance/watt
Not even close.
AMD is only price competitive if you want to buy a processor, any processor, and you don't care how fast it is, or how much power it draws.
Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ootout_13.html