Athlon 64 x2 vs. Core 2 Duo

[l e o]

At a given clock speed, which one, Athlon64 x2 (AM2)or Core 2 Duo, is
faster? And what about Athlon 64 x2 at 2GHz vs Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz?

 

[Jan Alter]

At a given clock speed, which one, Athlon64 x2 (AM2)or Core 2 Duo, is
faster? And what about Athlon 64 x2 at 2GHz vs Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz?

Maybe this will help

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

 

[Conor]

Maybe this will help

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

BLOODY HELL.

 

[Jan Alter]

BLOODY HELL.

--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

What does that mean?

BLOODY HELL.

And what light do you have to offer that will answer the question better?

 

[l e o]

What does that mean?


And what light do you have to offer that will answer the question better?

Thanks for the webpage. There is no entry for Canroe 1.86GHz. I guess
these processors are similar in performance. And nevertheless, the
Athlon 64 x2 @ 2GHz is slightly cheaper so I am alright with it.

 

[Clint]

Why are you trying to compare based on clock speed?

IMHO, the best thing to use to compare is processing power per dollar. So
look at the AMD processor, and see what Intel Core 2 Duo processor lines up
with it in terms of price. THEN compare the performance of those two
processors using benchmarks or whatever else.

You've also got to be more specific about what you mean by "faster". One
processor might be faster at math operations, another one faster at encoding
video.

In the link that was sent to you, if you compare the E6400 with the AMD X2
4400+, they're about the same clock speed (2.13GHz to 2.2). The E6400
spanks the 4400+ in every test I looked at on the charts. Sometimes it's a
light spanking (<5%), other times it's a thrashing (30 to 50%). But there
were no tests that the slightly faster clocked AMD processor beat the Intel.

You can also check out this article:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=1

BTW, the Intel processor you're looking at is the E6300, which is the
absolute lowest end of the Core 2 Duo's. Which might be why you're not
seeing much about it. Although it seems strange the Tom's Hardware guide
includes processors like my current Intel D 830 processor and not the
E6300...

Clint

 

[Conor]

What does that mean?

Look at the benchmarks. AMD was kicking Intels arse in gaming but the
Core Duo has given Intel back a crown I thought was firmly AMD's. THe
only Athlon with a chance is the FX-62. Forget the X2's, they're
nowhere close.

 

[Jan Alter]

Look at the benchmarks. AMD was kicking Intels arse in gaming but the
Core Duo has given Intel back a crown I thought was firmly AMD's. THe
only Athlon with a chance is the FX-62. Forget the X2's, they're
nowhere close.

--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

BLOODY HELL = Look at the benchmarks. AMD was kicking Intels arse in gaming
but the

Core Duo has given Intel back a crown I thought was firmly AMD's. THe
only Athlon with a chance is the FX-62. Forget the X2's, they're
nowhere close.

Thanks. I had no idea what that meant until you explained it.
ie: 'foot up' = start dancing (as in morris dancing) another English
expression.

Hmm- and I too had been considering AMD for the next build. Have to think
about that as well.

 

[DaveW]

The Intel Core 2 Duo's are currently the fastest and most efficient CPU's
available.

 

[Bret Miller]

I prefer AMD's, just my personal preference as is NVIDA.
But, thank God for the free enterprise system. If either CPU
manufacturer went belly up, the price of the CPUs would double or
triple. So while a lot of people are doing the "Intel Sucks" "No AMD
Sucks" I am happy that they are both in place.
opps posted under the wrong SUBJECT.

Oh well
BJ