Whitch is better

P

Project X

Expert Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
1,615
Reaction score
1
Intel core2duo e6400 @ 2.8ghz and AMD 64 X2 5200+
and how does it differ because im really looking into buying these but dont know witch one...
first i dont want it to be expensive and i want to know how core2duo e6400 @ 2.8ghz compers to a normal 3.2ghz cpu?
 
Core2Duo is dual core - improvement over single 3.2GHz CPU.

It's a matter of personal preference which one you choose, some say AMD is better, some say Intel.

Apparently the Core2Duo has the better architechture? Ask the die-hard AMD and Intel fans, they'll be able to tell you in more detail.
 
Honestly, the safest bet would be the C2D because the architecture is better at the moment but apparently AMD is releasing the K10 (aka Barcelona) CPU in Q3 2007 which according to them is a far more efficient core than the current Core architecture (40% more per CPU clock), so it should be faster than the C2D cpu's but Intel is releasing the Penryn core soon which will have a lower process and more cache so it could be quite close to the Barcelona in performance.

My advice, if you're going on the cheap, buy AMD, if you're going for performance and overclocking take the C2D. Also AMD 6000+ Cpu's are set to go for around R2.2k soon, because of AMD's price drops, which is a VERY good deal. It's effectively a FX74 CPU for R2.2k

WKJ?:beanie said:
Core2Duo is dual core - improvement over single 3.2GHz CPU.
Click to expand...

That depends entirely upon what it is you're doing, applications that only use one core, only uses one core plain and simple.
 
With the top-end AMD coming in at 2200 at the moment, you would be pretty silly not to consider going the AMD route.

I have always had AMD. Happy with my 5200+ right now :)
 
Gnome said:
That depends entirely upon what it is you're doing, applications that only use one core, only uses one core plain and simple.
Click to expand...

True, however with the improved Core2Duo architecture they are able to perform single-core tasks with more efficiency than previous CPUs. If I remember correctly, the 1.86GHz Core2Duo (E6300) is faster in single-core operations than a P4 3.6GHz! Check Tomshardware, I'm sure they have something on that subject somewhere? :)
 
WKJ?:beanie said:
True, however with the improved Core2Duo architecture they are able to perform single-core tasks with more efficiency than previous CPUs. If I remember correctly, the 1.86GHz Core2Duo (E6300) is faster in single-core operations than a P4 3.6GHz! Check Tomshardware, I'm sure they have something on that subject somewhere? :)
Click to expand...

Not too clued up on the Netburst architecture, I never even saw it as a proper CPU (Power hungry, inefficient architecture), but I recently saw the AMD6000+ performs between the Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 and the Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 which isn't too bad since it's priced the same/less (depending on dealer) as the E6400.
 
That's why I say, it's a matter of personal preference. It just comes down to what you are willing to pay for.
 
intel intel intel
i have a amd , why am i saying that ?

i go intel
 
Sad as it is to say. X2 6000+ is only slightly faster than E6400 and that's good because they are priced similarly. With a 6000+ if you have a proper 590 chipset board with support for DDR1066+ and you have the RAM, you can get major gains in performance from being able to utilize the added memory bandwidth over the E6400 but setting up a stock E6400 against a X2 6000+ they are in general about equal with the nod to the 6000+.

If you are thinking of anything faster than E6400, then go Intel. If you're an overclocker with good or normal cooling, go Intel.
If you already have an AMD setup however then 6000+ isn't a bad CPU at all :)
 
i wonder when amd is going to release there new super weapon against intel
its been a while since they have come back
 
ShockG

Where u get these Nice 590 Chipset boards at a reasonable price?

Everyone talks about them, but i cant seem to find 1.

Archi3
 
Archi3 said:
ShockG

Where u get these Nice 590 Chipset boards at a reasonable price?

Everyone talks about them, but i cant seem to find 1.

Archi3
Click to expand...

Although the 590 chipset is nice, I personally think it doesn't really offer that much more than the 550 chipset. I have a Asus M2N32 wireless deluxe and MSI K9N NEO-F and both are EXCELLENT boards but the ASUS costs 2 1/2 as much as the MSI and the differences are:
2x Gigabit ethernet VS 1x Gigabit ethernet
2x 16x PCI Express VS 1x 16x PCI Express
6x SATAII vs 4x SATAII
No IEEE1394
No raid 5 support on the 550.
Those are the standard 550 VS 590 features (the board also has onboard Wireless LAN, 'better' onboard sound and 8 phase power)

Although when I write it like that it seems a lot the 8 Phase power design hasn't netted me any benefits that I can tell, the HD audio doesn't have anything extra that I use and the Wireless LAN although very cool isn't exactly worth the high price tag.

Further the standard 590 package with 2x Gigbit Ethernet is overkill if you ask me, and unless you want to run SLI (which I don't recommend since the 8 series Geforce sucks when used in SLI and the other combo's cost more than a single 8 series card which would be stupid to take VS Geforce 8)
and I don't know about anyone else but I don't use RAID 5 since it slows your PC down and I don't have more than 4 SATA hard-drives.

My point being that the 550 that costs R700 is FAR better value than the 590 at about R2000. Although the 590 *MIGHT* overclock better, wouldn't you rather spend that extra R1000+ on a better CPU or GFX card?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X