Dual Core 2 or X2?

[wingfan]

Gonna be building new system.. don't know which to go to the Dual Core 2 or the X2 Dual Core AM2?

The system will be for video editing mostly.. using Vegas 6. And also gaming (FPS type games).

[J. Baker]

I like the AM2's myself. Haven't used a Intel since Pentium 3 was around.

[wingfan]

I like the AM2's myself. Haven't used a Intel since Pentium 3 was around.

same here .. but does the Dual Core 2 smoke the AM2? or is it very close? any ideas?

[pijetro]

I'm not gonna potentially get sucked into any future conversation of one versus the other, but all i can say, is that for simple cut/transition video editing, either one should be sufficient..

As far as the most intensive tasks are concerned (encoding, conforming etc...), then yes, you might see better results from one versus the other, but it's nothing earth shattering....Tom's hardware always showed great benchmark results.

If you're looking for some high end results, you'll need a dedicated card of some sort, whether video GPU, or some sort of DV/HDV accelerator (matrox, edius, etc), and an optimized PC configuration...

Otherwise, these two chips are in competition for bragging rights on paper, and would make most people in the real world, very happy with the end results...

[jagabo]

There is pretty much price parity between the two if you look at CPU intensive benchmarks.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=464&chart=185

If you have some important CPU inetensive program that you run all the time you should look for benchmarks for that program as any particular program could go either way.

[lordsmurf]

Friends don't let friends buy AMD. If you plan to do video, Intel is the way to go.

Emphasis on VIDEO here.

[pijetro]

Oh thanx lordsmurf.....

I'll just have to throw away my HPwX9300 workstation with AMD 2x Dual core Opterons....

Homer Simpson says:

Stupid expensive HP workstation.....


Seriously, i would've never thought of buying AMD, until a few months ago....
Seing as how it was a supported chip/chipset for validated systems in the "high end" category, i quickly learned how much AMD chips differed, and how the CPU isn't everything..

Friends let friends buy Xeons and Opterons for serious editing... 8)

[budz]

If you get a INTEL DUAL CORE you can always buy the low end processor. I bought a INTEL ALLENDALE 1.8ghz processor, $91.00 for a pc that I just built. It can overclock well with the right motherboard and ram. I left it at stock speed since it won't be used for intensive video work.

I do have a INTEL CONROE DUAL CORE E6400 2.13ghz that's now overclocked to 2.53ghz since I installed another gb of ram.

If money is tight then buy a AMD DUAL CORE but if money is no object then buy a INTEL. I always say buy what you can afford.

[wingfan]

There is pretty much price parity between the two if you look at CPU intensive benchmarks.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=464&chart=185

If you have some important CPU inetensive program that you run all the time you should look for benchmarks for that program as any particular program could go either way.

thanks for the link.. great site! definitely made my decision easier, going with X2. seems like it beats or keeps pace with the Dual Core 2 in every test. this judging by $200CDN price range CPUs i.e. X2 6000+ Dual Core vs Dual Core 2 E6420.

best bang for buck, AMD all the way

[lordsmurf]

"Best bang for the buck" is such a retarded saying. I'm tired of seeing it as the so-called reasoning for buying AMD. The AMD is cheaper, but you get a lesser product overall. It's not just the CPU, but the related goods that use the chipset. By and large, AMD motherboards are inferior crap and always have been, dominated by VIA garbage.

When you start to work with video, all the little shortcuts used in the overall AMD system quickly become apparent. Those CPU benchmark speeds don't mean anything, and sites like tomshardware are known to pretty much fellate AMD.

I own an AMD too, and have owned AMDs for years, since the K6 lines. But they are relegated to non-essential functions because they just cannot cut it on serious computing work. My workhorses are all Intel systems.

You also have to understand that "gaming" systems may not be best to do video on. You often have to make sacrifices in terms of the video hardware being used (if any), to accommodate the games. So decide which one is more important: games or video.

I don't know what level of seriousness you're getting into. With Vegas 6 being named, it sounds like you've spend some money on some serious software.

You can get by on an AMD, but you'll never be at 100% on video tasks.

[racer-x]

Regardless of what some people try to claim, AMD X2 CPU's are great for Video Editing and rendering. I consider myself very proficient at video editing. I work mostly with High Definition footage from my HDV camera. I've edited quite a lot of hours of footage (mostly sports), with lots of special effects and 3-D animations. I've rendered to lot's of different formats. HDV (1920x1080, 1440x1080, 1280x720) and of course SD/DVD. I routinely edit High Def in Premiere Pro 2 and use many high CPU intensive apps like OpenFX.

All this is done very efficiently on my (reliable, cheap) Acer desktop that I bought from Newegg last year for $700. It's got an AMD X2 3800. I would recommend AMD to anyone, especially for anything video related.

[rallynavvie]

You can get by on an AMD, but you'll never be at 100% on video tasks.

Hey now, my old Tyan Tiger with the dual 1900 MPs did pretty well against the Intel counterpart back then. In fact it still works pretty hard to this day 8)

Just because I switched to Intel hasn't put blinders on me. For video I would have to give the edge to Intel because of their chipset support, but you're going to pay for it. However since you mentioned gaming then the nVidia chipsets for the AMD chips will give you a bigger boost there. Funny thing is gaming relates more to number-crunching benchmarks (game physics being what they are) than it does to multimedia, and AMD has always been a leader on database apps. It's tough to get the best of both worlds without shelling out major $$$. Better choose for what you're really going to use that machine for. Keep in mind that the simple encoding tasks can be set up to be done overnight so you may not need the fastest processor, but when you're gaming you need the power on tap while you're playing...

[7th Angel]

Friends don't let friends buy AMD. If you plan to do video, Intel is the way to go...

Maybe "friends don't let friends buy AMD", but computer techs don't let friends buy Intel. I'm a computer tech for the state of California and have to support Intel based systems. Let me tell ya, it's a real pleasure to go home at the end of the day and use my AMD system!

7th Angel

[jagabo]

There is pretty much price parity between the two if you look at CPU intensive benchmarks.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=430&model2=464&chart=185

If you have some important CPU inetensive program that you run all the time you should look for benchmarks for that program as any particular program could go either way.

thanks for the link.. great site! definitely made my decision easier, going with X2. seems like it beats or keeps pace with the Dual Core 2 in every test. this judging by $200CDN price range CPUs i.e. X2 6000+ Dual Core vs Dual Core 2 E6420.

best bang for buck, AMD all the way :)

AMD dropped their prices a few days ago. Intel has price drops scheduled for July 22. If you're thinking of a quad core CPU, the Q6600 drops in price from US$530 to US$266. That's getting close to your stated price range. Other Intel processors will be dropping too. The link to the original article at hkepc.com isn't working but you can see the chart here:

http://forums.legitreviews.com/about9837.html

[RLT69]

lordsmurf your comments would carry more weight if you had some data to back up your claims.

By and large, AMD motherboards are inferior crap and always have been, dominated by VIA garbage.

The samething can happen to Intel MBs. Intel MBs are not immune to lousy chipsets. There are other chipset manufacturers out there as well. You don't have to get VIA.

My advice is look at reviews and see what people say.

[kush]

And VIA has not been any kind of a contender for the last 5 or 6 years. It's pretty much been NVIDIA based chipsets exclusively with Nforce 2 on. Hell they even do some of the better regarded chipsets for the Intel side for that matter. Although for the Intel camp w/ P965 on, the two are pretty much trading blows there.

To say AMD is crap because of VIA crappy chipsets is pure and utter crap. Bottom line - AMD was ahead of Intel with K7 until P4 Northwood cores came, then w/ A64 they were on top again until Core2 came around. They have been damn fine for encoding work, but as of now with the efficiency of the Core2 architecture, AMD has been beaten pretty soundly. That's not to say they're bad - there's pretty much a parity between K8/A64 and Core2 (or at least AMD is very close -- $$/$$ not clock speed), but with C2D/C2Q's HIGH overclockability, Intel spanks AMD. Who knows what AMDs upcoming quads will have in store - probably will kick ass, but they've got a BIG hill to climb to reach Intel. As noted the $266 quads MONTHS before retail availability of Barcelona, where as AMD's quads will be nowhere near that. Plus they're STILL hurting from the acquisition of ATI and the folly of their r600 release... Nor do I believe their marketing BS that Barcelona is 40% faster than the competition. Show me some proof AMD - not what's likely 1 obscure benchmark that noone gives a rats ass about. Show me performance against a comparable Intel build with things like Photoshop, actual video encoding, and the like.

Does this all mean I'm an AMD whore? I don't think so...While ALL of my self-built systems (since ~2000) have been AMD based, I am not beholden to them in any way. My next system WILL be a Q6600 in the next few months. AMD just isn't cutting it for me right now - and they kinda pissed me off by killing S939 WAY too early. It helps that right now DDR2 prices are dirt cheap as well.

There is one thing I can agree w/ LS on - Tom's Hardware blows - and hard. However they've been more Intel biased historically.. At least until a year or two ago. I guess they couldn't deny how good the A64 architecture really was any longer. Their articles as I recall seemed to always be 5x longer than needed (or more) due to the insane amount of ads. I refuse to click on any links that even remotely look like TH source.

[edit] Oh, and on the AMD price drops.. I figure they pretty much have to. Not that many people 'in the know' are buying AMD at this point. Core2 dual/quads are just too good, and with the price drops coming up, quad core is pretty much affordable to all except the low end. Also, they have to clear out their inventory somehow in preparation for Barcelona.

[rhegedus]

Friends don't let friends buy AMD. If you plan to do video, Intel is the way to go.

Emphasis on VIDEO here.

Exactly.

If anyone is in doubt, check out the benchmark results for video

best bang for buck, AMD all the way

Over here in the UK, the X2 6000 is the same price as the C2D E6600.

They seem to perform equally stock. If you're into overclocking, the E6600 is crazy - 40% gains on air cooling with stock voltage are common.

[Kairo]

Why is it that every time someone says the words Intel or AMD it always turns into a debate on which is better? Why cant people actually answer the question with a relevant response that is not based on opinion? I own both a C2D and a dual core Opteron, Im not a fan boy of AMD or Intel. Both systems have very similar setups and I can honestly say they both perform about the same. But the AMD rig was cheaper. :P I prefer AMD because of the price difference, but sad to say as of right now Intel is the better performer. I've been a long standing AMD fan for years but when Intel comes out with something new Im not biased that I wont give it a try before I make a judgment. Both Intel and AMD make good CPUs depending on the model. Right now (I'll probably recant these words in the future) Intel is the best you can buy. "This next part is irrelevant" Competition is good, it keeps prices down for the consumer and ensures products will improve. One company dominating a market is very bad... AT&T anyone? What I would do if I were you is find out how much I am willing to spend. Find a C2D and an AMD counterpart at the same price or close. Look at benchmarks from different sources that are not endorsed by the said CPUs company or its competition. Look at user opinions of people that own them. And finally try them out if possible.

[lordsmurf]

Some of you have short-term memories: Tom's Hardware has been sucking up to AMD for several years now, off and on. To be quite honest, the bias and opinions are all over the place, you're never sure if the reviews are fair or bunk. For that reason, it's pretty useless. Just look at some of the raw test data, take the comparison chart with a grain of salt, and don't even bother reading the conclusions.

Remember that those benchmark tests rarely equate to real-world performance, and that the tests chosen can be the method of bias.

If you're a computer tech that uses AMD, I'm glad you're not running any networks I have to use. There's a reason Intel has locked up networks, servers and power-hungry workstations (like video). It's not for any reason other than stability and efficiency at those tasks. And then, inversely, there is a reason AMD has a respectable share of home computing and video games. It's because of low price, in an environment where you typically do not need the high level of stability and power-hungry tasks. I suggest AMD myself, for people who just want a new computer for typical home use (Word, e-mail, couple of games, web surfing). However, video is one of those specialized tasks, so AMD suggestions should not be made.

Intel always brings out a new Intel motherboard that can be used with the new CPU, and it's always a good motherboard. With AMD, you might sit on your hands for a while, waiting for that magic motherboard to appear, and sometimes it never comes. If AMD made their own motherboards, to a quality that matched Intel, things might change.

Sorry, but a question of AMD vs Intel will always result in this sort of response. You'll get fanboys from each side confusing the issue, and then solid advice (like I'm trying to give) tends to get lost in the ego-driven, purchase-defending crap.

Intel is a race car, fit for track use.
AMD is a 4-banger with crap added to it, for amateur street racing.

Again, decide on the funds available, and how important video is to your overall setup. If video is going to be a major function of the machine, get the Intel. More casual use, sure, AMD would be okay.

[KBeee]

Toms Hardware, and [H] have both been crap for years. ever since $ replaced integrity. When a Hobby Site suddenly becomes your main source of income (or even Riches in some cases), then you stop biting the hand that feeds you.
Thank Goodness there's still 1 or 2 sites with unbought opinions.

[gotnotime]

You are too hard on Tom's Hardware. There is nothing wrong for pulling for the underdog AMD. The only reason that Intel started releasing new chip designs is because of he competition with AMD. The last two years until Intel released dual core, AMD was the undisputed king when it came to chip performance. Now the pendulum has swung back to Intel. They clearly have the best CPU currently and AMD's fastest chip can not match it. However, if you can settle for less then the best, AMD dollar for dollar will give you better performance then the Intel's. Especially with the recent drop in price by AMD.

If you don't like Tom's site, try Sharky's

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/index.php

They have articles that compare budget and high end AMD vs Intel gaming systems.

Personally, I have a AMD system currently, but have just decided to build a Intel duo as Intel is about to cut their prices next week. I'm still pulling for the underdog AMD though. Intel appears to have regained most of the market share they lost to AMD a couple years ago. If they are able to dominate the market again like they did from the 1990's to 2003 you can be sure that it will end the rapid increase in performance we've seen in the last ten years.

[buttzilla]

I have the Intel e6600 duo core. Which runs at 2.4 ghz. Paid $225.00 for it. Its a smoking chip. Smoked my buddies am2. He always raved amd where better for gamming rigs. My non gaming rig smoked his gamming rig in 3dmark06 by a thousand points and he had the nvidia 8800 card and I had the nvidia 7950 gt ko and a 90 dollar intel board. He was so jealous.

[rhegedus]

I have the Intel e6600 duo core. Which runs at 2.4 ghz. Paid $225.00 for it. Its a smoking chip. Smoked my buddies am2. He always raved amd where better for gamming rigs. My non gaming rig smoked his gamming rig in 3dmark06 by a thousand points and he had the nvidia 8800 card and I had the nvidia 7950 gt ko and a 90 dollar intel board. He was so jealous.

What am2?

[Grain]

edit

[buttzilla]

I have the Intel e6600 duo core. Which runs at 2.4 ghz. Paid $225.00 for it. Its a smoking chip. Smoked my buddies am2. He always raved amd where better for gamming rigs. My non gaming rig smoked his gamming rig in 3dmark06 by a thousand points and he had the nvidia 8800 card and I had the nvidia 7950 gt ko and a 90 dollar intel board. He was so jealous.

What am2?

I should have typed AMD X2. am2 is the socket type. He has a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor 6000 in a am2 socket.

[rallynavvie]

The only reason that Intel started releasing new chip designs is because of he competition with AMD. The last two years until Intel released dual core, AMD was the undisputed king when it came to chip performance.

True perhaps for the consumer market. The Prescotts (and Noconas) were an Intel disaster and one of the driving forces of me to switch back to AMD for my next workstation. However the Xeons have been reigning supreme in the workstation/server market for years. The Optys really only had them recently when they came out with the native 64-bit chips because their architecture allowed them to run cooler (and with less power) than the competing Xeons. This was pretty brief until the Irwindales turned out to be the new Prestonias, and then the C2D came out and is being used in some form with the current crop of Xeons. As I said in my previous post though: the Opterons are still great math chips. Given a choice between Xeons and Opterons for a database server I'd go with Opterons in a heartbeat.

[Rich86]

Be sure to pray that Intel's current price undercutting strategy to further AMD financial problems does not work - because without AMD, just imagine what we would all be paying for processors.

My current tower is using a Epox motherboard (NVidia), AMD/AM2 64x2 processor and Sapphire video card. This is my second AMD based machine - and I am very pleased with it - as I was with the previous machine. I have no intentions of ever returning to an Intel processor based computer.

[buttzilla]

You are too hard on Tom's Hardware. There is nothing wrong for pulling for the underdog AMD. The only reason that Intel started releasing new chip designs is because of he competition with AMD. The last two years until Intel released dual core, AMD was the undisputed king when it came to chip performance. Now the pendulum has swung back to Intel. They clearly have the best CPU currently and AMD's fastest chip can not match it. However, if you can settle for less then the best, AMD dollar for dollar will give you better performance then the Intel's. Especially with the recent drop in price by AMD.

If you don't like Tom's site, try Sharky's

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/index.php

They have articles that compare budget and high end AMD vs Intel gaming systems.

Personally, I have a AMD system currently, but have just decided to build a Intel duo as Intel is about to cut their prices next week. I'm still pulling for the underdog AMD though. Intel appears to have regained most of the market share they lost to AMD a couple years ago. If they are able to dominate the market again like they did from the 1990's to 2003 you can be sure that it will end the rapid increase in performance we've seen in the last ten years.

Guess what AMD is no little guy here. They are a billion dollar corporation just like intel. I don't root for billion dollar corporations. Should i feel sorry if they lose? No, these are companies who took their operations to third world countries to make more money for themselves. Their a billion dollar corporation who's main objective is to make a buck off of you. I use the duo core because its the best chip out there right now. If someother company came out with a smoken chip i would use it. The only thing good about having two chip makers is it keeps price lower because of the competition.

[smitbret]

"Best bang for the buck" is such a retarded saying. I'm tired of seeing it as the so-called reasoning for buying AMD. The AMD is cheaper, but you get a lesser product overall. It's not just the CPU, but the related goods that use the chipset. By and large, AMD motherboards are inferior crap and always have been, dominated by VIA garbage.

When you start to work with video, all the little shortcuts used in the overall AMD system quickly become apparent. Those CPU benchmark speeds don't mean anything, and sites like tomshardware are known to pretty much fellate AMD.

I own an AMD too, and have owned AMDs for years, since the K6 lines. But they are relegated to non-essential functions because they just cannot cut it on serious computing work. My workhorses are all Intel systems.

You also have to understand that "gaming" systems may not be best to do video on. You often have to make sacrifices in terms of the video hardware being used (if any), to accommodate the games. So decide which one is more important: games or video.

I don't know what level of seriousness you're getting into. With Vegas 6 being named, it sounds like you've spend some money on some serious software.

You can get by on an AMD, but you'll never be at 100% on video tasks.

Pretty much every word of this is just as retarded as saying "best bang for your buck". Anyone that knows anything about PC hardware will read this and decide that you don't know what the he!! you are talking about. So keep fellating your Intel, as long as it makes you happy in your little shuttered world. Please, just don't spread this drivel to anyone else.

To anyone reading this thread, please disregard everything that Lordsmurf writes regarding AMD vs. Intel.

[smitbret]

Currently Intel's Core 2 Duo is king as far as CPU intensive activities like video editing are concerned. $ for $ a $150 CPU is going to perform similarly whether it's an Intel or AMD. Keep in mind that Mhz really don't matter much anymore. Just a couple of years ago, 1.8 Ghz CPUs from AMD were stomping all over 3 Ghz Intel CPUs. The new Core 2 Duo CPUs from Intel will give about 20-30% better performance for the same clock speed, meaning a 1.6 Ghz Intel is typically about 20-30% faster than a 1.6 Ghz AMD CPU. The CPU performance charts at Tom's Hardware do give you a good idea about how the CPUs compare to each other.

There are more important components that you should be considering instead of which brand of CPU, either will do the job. Make sure you get quality RAM and enough of it. If you are going to be using it for gaming at all, then the video card is going to make a huge difference. Also, do not buy/use a cheap Power Supply. Then there is the whole upgrade path thing, AM2 should allow you to upgrade to Quad Core given the right motherboard where LGA 775 is nearing it's life cycle end.

A good thing to do might be to let us know what kind of budget you are planning and let myself or some people on the forums at Tom's Hardware or Anandtech give you some ideas.