Confused about AMD vs INTEL dual core

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by ilnyckyj, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. ilnyckyj macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    #1
    I've been reading about dual core processors, and i was looking on newegg.

    This first is an Intel dual core, it operates at 3 ghz and costs $331:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116238

    This second is an AMD dual core, it operates at 1.8 ghz and costs $325:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103588


    Does the difference in cache size really make up the difference between the clockspeeds? The Intel's L2 cache is twice the size of the AMD's. They both support 64 bit, and the Intel runs at a lower voltage, but the AMD has 'Hyper Transport support'. What would by the advantage to getting the AMD? Which would you get?
     
  2. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #2
    go for the amd--it's faster, runs cooler, etc.
    seriously, the x2's PWN the pentium d's in benchmarks and real world use
    but go for this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562
    the one you were looking at was an opteron, unless you KNOW you need an opteron, you need a regular athlon 64 x2
     
  3. badmofo9000 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Shores of Lake Michigan
    #3
    The only Intel dual core offering that is worth anything in my opinion is the new Core duo. Get the AMD X2 instead of the Pentium D.
     
  4. ilnyckyj thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    #4
    but let's say I was doing some video encoding. Wouldn't it get the job done faster with a single core operating at a higher frequency. (won't most applications not take advantage of both cores at the same time?)
     
  5. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #5
    thing is, even then the amd's faster because it's more efficient, and other things. megahertz aren't everything ;)
     
  6. ilnyckyj thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    #6
    how is it more efficient? why is the intel's L2 cache twice that of the AMD and what effect would that have on it?
     
  7. smokeyboi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    #7
    just listen to what the guys above are saying! the amd is much more efficient than the pentium d!

    the pentium d's are nothing more than two pentium 4 cores stuck together.

    if you really wanna go the intel route....then the core duo is the only way to go!
     
  8. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #8
    it has a shorter pipeline, better memory latency (due to onboard memory controller), and better design. for a true why you should ask a microprocessor designer--i don't fully know the WHY, only that it is :eek: :p
    the cache is twice as much because, well, intel designed it that way. as far as performance, more cache IS an advantage because it allows the processor to store more instructions in ultra-fast memory, much faster even than RAM, but more cache doesn't necessarily make for a bad processor.


    o by the way, are you doing heavy, heavy audio work with this machine? AMD's lag behind intel's in audio work for some reason :)


    i could find some benchmarks for this stuff if you like, there are many out there showing amd better than intel. i don't really consider myself to be a fanboy, it's just that athlon 64 is much better than netburst (the pentium 4 microarchitecture). if this were laptops, intel's laptop chips outperform amd's.

    edit: some benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60_dual_core_assault/page7.html a lot of processors, but the 930 and the 3800+ are on there.
     
  9. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #9
    tbf, so are the x2's, just stuck together in a better way, and better to start with.
     
  10. smokeyboi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    #10
    yes, your correct...the amd is better to begin with.
     
  11. Rocksaurus macrumors 6502a

    Rocksaurus

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #11
    Also keep in mind that that Opteron will overclock very well. It basically kicks the crap out of the Intel offering, as others have said.
     

Share This Page