Dual Core 2 or X2?

[rallynavvie]

You know what I think is funny? We're comparing clock speeds or PR ratings on these chips. We've come a long way folks, there are very fundamental differences in architecture now and there is not going to be a standard of comparison unless you do it yourself. I think what it's going to come down to is finding a bench that suits your own work and trying it out on two equally-priced processors.

Unfortunately the majority of us cannot take them both for a test drive so guess who the real losers are in this "battle"

[budz]

Whoas! This thread is getting a bit heated! Bottom line for anyone is to buy a processor that they can afford.

[MJA]

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).

too bad newegg.com doesn't ship to canada.The new AMD Athlon X2 BE-2300/2350(both are 45w) are selling for $89,and $95. I'm fan of AMD .I will never spend my money on a CPU made in a Kipots

[lordsmurf]

The general guidelines for CPU shopping:

INTEL is best for these tasks:
1) Video work
2) Servers
3) Systems that stay running at all times
4) Laptops
... and AMD can do these too, just not as well

AMD is best for these tasks:
1) General online tasks (e-mail, browsing, web design)
2) General office tasks (word processing, spreadsheets, graphics)
3) Games
... but Intel can do these too, no problems

These are the general guidelines. You'll pay for the Intel, but it's because you need it for more advanced tasks.

The architecture is really built for these in mind. Hell, even their marketing is strategic in this way. Same for M&A moves (ATI, for example). Why is it that your typical Internet nerd can't see the information in front of their face? It's not hidden or anything, could not be any more blatant.

This is a video site. Get an Intel. How hard does it have to be? If Intel costs too much, buy AMD and live with the disadvantages. Luckily, the gaps between performance narrow as time goes on.

[buttzilla]

"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.

I agree with Lordsmurf. How many amd servers have you ever seen. Most workstations I have ever seen ar intel. Where i work we have hundreds of machines including servers and workstations. Not one of them amd. In the bussiness and comercial world intel rules and amd drools.

[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.

I agree with Lordsmurf. How many amd servers have you ever seen. Most workstations I have ever seen ar intel. Where i work we have hundreds of machines including servers and workstations. Not one of them amd. In the bussiness and comercial world intel rules and amd drools.

Agree all you want, but you will still be wrong. Most workstations are Intel because the companies purchasing them have been purchasing them for years. It's easier to stay with a brand than try to convert and then equip an IT department. If you haven't seen any AMD servers, it's because you haven't seen any that were purchased in the last two years. If these statements were made 3 years ago, there might be some truth to them, but three years is an eternity in the technology industry. Lordsmurf's blanket categorizations are relics from years ago. I'm surprised he's not doing all of his editing on a G5 Mac, cuz everyone knows that when it comes to multimedia, Apple is the way to go (sense sarcasm).

[redwudz]

The VideoHelp.com servers:

Server hardware
Two Dual Core Opteron 265 Processors (AMD)
2GB RAM
2 x 73GB SCSI HDD

Dual 2.8GHz Xeon Processors (Intel)
4GB RAM
3 x 73GB SCSI HDD

So we have both.

And please, do I have to remind all posters to keep it civil? No personal attacks.

Moderator redwudz

[mysticmel]

I'm not about to pretend like I'm an expert on either of 'em because the fact of the matter is that I'm not ... as I don't do the gaming thing, overclocking or stuff like this to make a huge difference so to speak. BUT I will say this, I personally despies Intel's chip on the shoulder attitude (ha no pun intended!) ... I don't know too much about their chips previous to the Duo's but they don't seem to like to play nice on the playgrounds these days. As far as I have experienced with Intel (which hasn't been much thus far, and from the vibe I'm feeling right about now it wouldn't carry out to well in future builds either!), they are pitifully stuck on running their own ballgame ... much like Apple ... making it insanily impossible to go 3rd party anything. After building several AMD systems I finally got a spark up my butt to test drive an Intel to see what all the hype was about ... and truthfully, even though my Core 2 is a shiney piece with all the nice bells and whistles I more often than not find myself gravitating to my Duron machines. I dunno, perhaps I have a little softspot for the underdog here, but I'm just quite partial to my first build K6 and Duron. BTW, I've chosen to try out the Core 2 E6600 and my luck was pretty crappy with finding a compatible board ... I went through two Asus's and an MSI, all which rejected the Core 2. So, much to my disappointment I had to resort to buying an Intel board. Don't get me wrong it's a nice board with lots of advantages, but I'm just not the type to have to be locked in with a single manufacture ... I believe in spreading the love. Ok I'm stepping down from the soapbox now - please only take my opinions with a tiny grain of salt, after all I 'm still a fan"girl" of 98SE!!!

On a last thought, I do believe that both chips have their own advantages to offer ... but as far as affordable-quality goes AMD crosses the ol' winning line.

Don't let our differences impair your inner adventures ... try em' both and see for yourself which you dig!


Cheers to you all.

Kay

[rhegedus]

Bottom line:

According to the tomshardware benchmarks for video tasks, the fastest AMD chip is the X2 6000+. The Core 2 Duo E6600 performs about the same overall.

Newegg has the AMD at $170 and the Intel at $223.

If you're buying on price, go with AMD. If you want to go faster then you either buy a faster Intel or overclock what you have.

Your money, your choice

[jagabo]

According to the tomshardware benchmarks for video tasks, the fastest AMD chip is the X2 6000+. The Core 2 Duo E6600 performs about the same overall.

Newegg has the AMD at $170 and the Intel at $223.

If you're buying on price, go with AMD. If you want to go faster then you either buy a faster Intel or overclock what you have.

In a week or so the E6750 (higher clock speed than the E6600, faster FSB, twice as much cache) will probably sell for under $200.

[rhegedus]

There's always the week after that too

[tekkieman]

The company I work for develops video encoders. More than 80% of our development machines are dual Opterons. My new one? Core 2 Duo. At home? Two of each.

I buy what fits my budget. Depending on who dropped their prices this week, I might end up with either. If equally priced, I look at motherboard price for reliable/trusted performance, and let that decide. There is no noticeable difference in performance of any of my machines.

For most purposes, the wars are over, except the price war, which benefits us all regardless of personal preference.

[deadrats]

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).

by now you've recieved a ton of replies and i admit i haven't read through all of them, but i will throw in my 2 cents:

neither.

i would personally wait until intel's new "penryn" is available and build a system around that.

penryn should be available before the end of this year (actually a bit sooner) and a dual core penryn, under some circumstances, is actually faster than a quad core kentsfield running multithreaded apps thanks to a much higher fsb (penryn will use a 1600 mhz fsb), a beefed up floating point unit, beefed up L1 caches, beefed up L2 caches, ss4, beefed up instruction ordering and higher clock speeds.

some links:

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/12127

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2087985,00.asp

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070328-intel-spills-beans-on-core-2-successor-s...er-caches.html

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2115081,00.asp

[lordsmurf]

What was done in the past does not control what is done currently or in the future. The truth of the matter is that, in certain environments environments, the Intel systems DO work better, they DO have history on their side, and they DO sell better in corporate environments for this reason. With budgeting the way it is, you can bet AMD is looked at anytime upgrades are needed, but often get passed over.

As I mentioned before, I don't see why some people are so thick. AMD and Intel market themselves for certain tasks, they do M&A to reach their goals, and they build architecture around the specific tasks. While they both dabble in each other's markets, it's not the main thrust of their goals. This stuff is talked about all the time in trade magazines. When you have an 80-20 type of market, and you're the 20, you go at the niche markets to survive. This is what Apple does, with the interface being their niche product.

I'm all for buying both CPUs, but be sure you're really buying what works best for the desired computing task, not what the uneducated fanboys tell you. Of course, you have to balance this with your checkbook. I know these decisions can be hard.

Problem is, when you say you want a computer to do multiple tasks, you can end up with a dilemma. It's not much different than wanting a car that goes really fast on the race track AND can haul luggage and families on vacation. You'll have to make decisions on what is most important.

All the same, good luck with whatever you buy, hopefully it works well.

[smitbret]

What was done in the past does not control what is done currently or in the future. The truth of the matter is that, in certain environments environments, the Intel systems DO work better, they DO have history on their side, and they DO sell better in corporate environments for this reason. With budgeting the way it is, you can bet AMD is looked at anytime upgrades are needed, but often get passed over.

As I mentioned before, I don't see why some people are so thick. AMD and Intel market themselves for certain tasks, they do M&A to reach their goals, and they build architecture around the specific tasks. While they both dabble in each other's markets, it's not the main thrust of their goals. This stuff is talked about all the time in trade magazines. When you have an 80-20 type of market, and you're the 20, you go at the niche markets to survive. This is what Apple does, with the interface being their niche product.

I'm all for buying both CPUs, but be sure you're really buying what works best for the desired computing task, not what the uneducated fanboys tell you. Of course, you have to balance this with your checkbook. I know these decisions can be hard.

Problem is, when you say you want a computer to do multiple tasks, you can end up with a dilemma. It's not much different than wanting a car that goes really fast on the race track AND can haul luggage and families on vacation. You'll have to make decisions on what is most important.

All the same, good luck with whatever you buy, hopefully it works well.

Dude, would you give it up already? To your credit, you know a lot about 99% of the stuff around here, but your sweeping Intel vs. AMD generalizations are based on old, stale info and they are just wrong. So, please stop before someone that doesn't know any better takes your recommendation (because you are usualy quite credible) and ends up buying a Pentium D 850 or some crap like that.

[gotnotime]

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.

Yes you should feel sorry if AMD loses becasue without competitiion prices will soar and perfomance will stagnate. I'm not going to debate you about the so called "evil" big companies, but even an idiot like you should recognize that the consumers are always the winner in a market with competition. If you like monopoly's and socialism move to Cuba

[buttzilla]

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.

Yes you should feel sorry if AMD loses becasue without competitiion prices will soar and perfomance will stagnate. I'm not going to debate you about the so called "evil" big companies, but even an idiot like you should recognize that the consumers are always the winner in a market with competition. If you like monopoly's and socialism move to Cuba

I'm an idiot because I have an opinion? What a ******* ******* you are!

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator redwudz

[redwudz]

Personal attacks and obscenties are not tolerated here. I warned the various posters about this before and the thread will be locked.

Moderator redwudz