Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

im new Please Help! AMD (AM2) Athlon64x2 or Intel Core2duo

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 16, 2007 10:32:44 AM

Man, i hate this!!!
choosing a CPU!! the things u have to go thru, just when you have made up your mind, they put something new out!

I read thru alot of the forums and the official sites of both Amd and Intel.. and looking at Toms cpu chart and benchmarks, C2D is better than both AMD athlon64x2 and intel P.D 9xx

but what bothers me is..

AMD's new AM2 athlon64x2 processors got twice as much fsb than C2D, 2000mhz where as C2D 1066mhz. not to mention AMD has a total memory bandwidth of 20Gb/s where as intel mama-boards' total is only 10.8Gb/s! The cpu speed difference isnt that much of a deal, comparing C2D
e6600 with am2 athlon64x 4800+ ,both of them at 2.4Ghz and 4mb cache (intel's 2 cores share the cache, where as amd has 2mb separate cache dedicated to each core!)

doesnt more Fsb mean better flow? with better flow and more memory bandwidth mean better overall better performance?

even after all the spec shown above clearly amd "seams" to be better than C2D e6600, but everywhere i check e6600 is way better than amd - how is this possible, what does C2D have that amd doesnt?

check this out: e6400 ties amd 4800+ inthe benchmark of unreal tournament(and almost everything)..so which one of these is better now?!

Doesnt speed of the processor make a difference? PD960 with 3.6ghz everything same as C2D but only difference is the fsb, with PD960 with 800mhz and C2D with 1066mhz? so how come C2D even e6300 is faster than top range in PD (960)?

and what difference does it make if a cpu has a total 4 or 2mb cache?

im not planing to overclock this time, as i already have fried a cpu and the mama board, including a hole in my wallet from the way i spent so much on it :p  so please answer disregarding over clocking, and processors such as en6700, C2Dextreme, athlon64-fx, extreme cpus which i cant afford,

so out of e6400,PD950(3.4ghz,4mb),PD945(3.4ghz,4mb), amd 4600+(2.4ghz,2mb),4400+(2.2ghz,4mb) which should i buy?

thanks,
January 16, 2007 10:42:15 AM

I'll make it simple for you - C2D is better.

AMD's HT bus is very quick but is actually more than what AMD needs at the moment. The X2s only use up about 40% of the HT bus, so the remaining 60% is kind of sitting idle.

Also, as for your comment about AMD having 4MB of cache, I'm not sure what you're talking about but the most cache on an AMD CPU is 1MB per core or 2MB combined. C2Ds from the E6600 and up have 4MB shared cache.
January 16, 2007 11:03:42 AM

Quote:
Let me help you clear up a few misconceptions and explain how a computer works....



AMD's new AM2 athlon64x2 processors got twice as much fsb than C2D, 2000mhz where as C2D 1066mhz. not to mention AMD has a total memory bandwidth of 20Gb/s where as intel mama-boards' total is only 10.8Gb/s! The cpu speed difference isnt that much of a deal, comparing C2D
e6600 with am2 athlon64x 4800+ ,both of them at 2.4Ghz and 4mb cache (intel's 2 cores share the cache, where as amd has 2mb separate cache dedicated to each core!)doesnt more Fsb mean better flow? with better flow and more memory bandwidth mean better overall better performance?
even after all the spec shown above clearly amd "seams" to be better than C2D e6600, but everywhere i check e6600 is way better than amd - how is this possible, what does C2D have that amd doesnt?


First, you care counfused, AMD does not use a FSB it uses a hyptertransport, it is a serial transport as opposed to Intel's bus which is parallel.

Second, the HT actually operates at 1000 MHz but because it can send data to and from simultaneously people errantly think it is 2000 MHz. A better way to think of it in terms of transactions per second or megatransactions per second. Each clock tick is a transaction, the HT operating at 1000 MHz can give 2000 MT/second because it can send and receive at the same time. Of course the situation where it will send and receive does not occur that often so it really never does 2000 MT/sec at any given time very often, also to get data from the source to the CPU in one direction is actually 1/2 of what you are thinking.

Third, each transaction of an HT has 2 bytes encoded (16 bits), Intel's bus is 64 bits wide (8 bytes). This translates to HT giving 2x1000 or 2000 MBytes/sec in one direction while Intel's gives 8x1067 or 8500 MBtyes/sec. So Intel's bus is quite a bit faster.

The caveat --- Intel's bus handles memory, AMD's does not... AMD has the memory controller on the chip. So HT is only good for basic IO, likely HD data loading to memory, but once it is there HT is functionless with respect to computational performance. Intel on the other hand never needs to put 'loading data' through the CPU, their memory controller is on the chipset and the chipset has 3 DMA channels that bypasses the CPU and puts data directly to memory, thus the FSB to the CPU is not used for IO when transfering data into and out of memory. Confusing yes.

Anywho -- there is advantages and disadvantages to using these two different approaches, nonetheless, the data is data C2D out performs AMD significantly across the board. The reason?? You think of bandwidth as speed and it is not really speed so much is it is a pipeline, the size of the pipeline determines how much data can be shuttled at any given time--technical term is bandwidth. Think of a pipe of 6" diameter, capable of flowing 10 gallans per minute at 75 psi (just pulling numbers).... but if your demand is only 2 gallons per minute then you have plenty of flow rate to satisfy that... only when your demand exceeds 10 gallons per minute would you be in trouble. Same thing with CPUs, CPUs are crunching data, data, data and if they only need 2000 MB/sec to keep the CPU fed then 8500 MB/sec is plenty.

The truth is.... there are no applications you would run that will saturate and fully utilize the entire 8500 MB/sec bandwidth available. Intel has stated many times that there is plenty of blandwidht for their CPUs using the FSB --- people don't believe them because they doen't understand how it works.... they have been pre-programed and brainwashed by the "FSB is bad FSB is bad" mantra, and people get confused why C2D crushes AMD.... but in fact, it is simple --- architecturally C2D is simply better than K8 and the benchmark data shows that.

JackNice explaination Jack, but you didn't explain the differences between C2D and K8.....Just AMD's HT and Intel's FSB. He may still think that a PD965 EE with 1066FSB will be faster than a K8. :wink:
Related resources
January 16, 2007 12:38:15 PM

Simple: Core2 Duo > K8 > Pentium D.
So, out of e6400, PD950(3.4ghz,4mb),PD945(3.4ghz,4mb), amd 4600+(2.4ghz,2mb),4400+(2.2ghz,4mb) buy Core 2 Duo E6400.
January 16, 2007 1:05:20 PM

Very nice, that clears up a lot with me as well.
a c 99 à CPUs
January 16, 2007 1:49:27 PM

Quote:
Man, i hate this!!!
choosing a CPU!! the things u have to go thru, just when you have made up your mind, they put something new out!


This happens to everybody, you're not alone. Generally the cure for this is to wait until you really need a new computer before you buy one. Your current machine not cutting it will spur you to replace it as soon as possible so you won't be tempted to wait any more.

Quote:
I read thru alot of the forums and the official sites of both Amd and Intel.. and looking at Toms cpu chart and benchmarks, C2D is better than both AMD athlon64x2 and intel P.D 9xx


Manufacturers' websites are generally good sources of technical information about the products but are notoriously poor at giving *competitive* information. It would be like Ford putting on their website that Chevy trucks are more reliable- you're just not going to see it.

Sites like Tom's are decent at evaluating the processors and determining which one is better at certain things. However, your mileage may vary with how you use your machine and what you run on it. I run very few applications that Tom's uses to benchmark their CPUs with and as such, I generally look at broad trends. Here is a brief summary of their reviews:

1. Pentium D 800s are basically two P4 Prescotts put together on one CPU package. This makes extremely hot-running CPUs that are beaten by each and every AMD Athlon X2 and Core 2 Duo unless they are overclocked wildly, such as the Pentium D 805 that Tom's got up to 4.1 GHz (burning several hundred watts just on the CPU in the process!)

2. The Pentium D 900 series are improved versions of the Pentium D 800 that have more L2 cache but basically their main advantage over the 800s is that they run significantly cooler at the same speeds. But they're still quite hot. The upper range of the Pentium D 900 series (945, 950, 955EE, 960, 965EE) are competitive in performance to the lower-end Athlon 64 X2s and Core 2 Duos.

3. The Athlon 64 X2 series are very good processors based on the Athlon 64 architecture. They consist of only one processor die with both cores on it and have an integrated memory controller and a HyperTransport serial bus to talk to the chipset instead of a frontside bus that does both functions. The X2s are somewhat slower clock-for-clock than the Core 2 Duo CPUs, especially in programs that heavily use SSE optimizations (some encoders, many games) but the X2 line has higher clock speeds than the Core 2 Duos do, so performance is similar up until the high end, where the Core 2 Duos have clock speed parity and outpace the X2s.

4. The Core 2 Duo is basically a heavily massaged Core Duo, which is in itself a heavily massaged dual-core version of the Pentium 3 as opposed to the Pentium 4-based Pentium Ds. This means that the Core 2 Duo runs far cooler than the Pentium Ds and performs much better. The Core 2 Duo line has the overall performance crown with the Core 2 Duo X6800 beating the AMD X2 line. The Core 2 Duo series is very well-regarded for overclocking prowess, while the current 90 nm X2 line doesn't go much above 3.2 GHz no matter what you do to it.

5. The Core 2 Quadros are made up of two Core 2 Duo dies stuck together in one CPU package, similar to how the Pentium Ds were two Pentium 4s stuck in one package. These chips are currently very expensive and run very hot- similar to the Pentium D 800 series. Clock speeds are 2.67 GHz and 2.40 GHz and performance is similar to the similarly-clocked Core 2 Duos in single or two-threaded applications. Programs that can use 4 cores will run much faster on the C2Q than the C2D, but on Windows, basically that's limited to some video encoders and rendering software.

6. AMD's QuadFX is basically a dual-Opteron workstation that's priced very aggressively and uses normal unbuffered RAM instead of ECC RAM used in the dual or quad Opteron setups. The QuadFX has three dual-core processor pair sets- the FX-70 (2.6 GHz) FX-72 (2.8 GHz) and FX-74 (3.0 GHz.) The FX-74 is competitive with the QX6700, with the QX6700 generally winning the single-threaded game benchmarks and the FX-74 winning most other benchmarks. The FX-70 is probably the most intersting as it's the least expensive way to get four cores (roughly $1000 for CPUs + motherboard while a single Q6600 is something near $900) and the QuadFX motherboard is upgradeable to two quad-core CPUs when they come out later this year.

Quote:
but what bothers me is..

AMD's new AM2 athlon64x2 processors got twice as much fsb than C2D, 2000mhz where as C2D 1066mhz. not to mention AMD has a total memory bandwidth of 20Gb/s where as intel mama-boards' total is only 10.8Gb/s! The cpu speed difference isnt that much of a deal, comparing C2D
e6600 with am2 athlon64x 4800+ ,both of them at 2.4Ghz and 4mb cache (intel's 2 cores share the cache, where as amd has 2mb separate cache dedicated to each core!)

doesnt more Fsb mean better flow? with better flow and more memory bandwidth mean better overall better performance?


Like Jack said, the AMD CPUs don't have an FSB. K8 CPUs have an integrated memory controller that links directly from the processor to the RAM. Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2s can handle dual-channel DDR2-800, so they have a memory bandwidth equivalent to what a 1600 MHz FSB can provide. They also have a HyperTransport serial link between the CPU and chipset that's capable of pushing 2 bytes per clock at a rate of 1 GHz in both directions at one time. This gives 4 GB/sec in bandwidth in each direction simultaneously between the CPU and chipset. Intel's FSB carries both memory data and CPU <-> chipset traffic, although there is not that much of the latter and in Intel's case, much of what has to go through AMD's HTT link does not even hit the CPU as Jack also noted.

AMD's CPUs have more bandwidth than they can handle at the present, which is why the transition from socket 939 to Socket AM2 doubled the memory bandwidth that the CPU got but didn't increase performance. This will greatly benefit them when quad-core CPUs come out, but it doesn't do much now. Intel's FSB can't scale that much further than it already has, but Intel coupled a reasonably memory-miserly processor in the Core 2 Duo with a ton of cache and excellent prefetching algorithms to extract the most out of the old FSB. Intel also made some key architectural improvements, particularly the ability to execute SSE instructions in one clock tick instead of two (like all previous CPUs do.) As such, the C2D performs excellently on applications that use SSE instructions heavily, like games and certain encoders. That is why the Core 2 Duos are faster than the Athlon X2s even though AMD's CPUs are awash in bandwidth and Intel's are not.

The Core 2 Quadro is about as much as Intel's FSB can handle at the present, so watch to see what Intel does when it wants to make an 8-core CPU. I'll give you a hint: Intel is making a 1300-some-odd pin socket for these CPUs and it's not because they need 600 extra pins for extra power. The LGA 775/771 sockets provide enough of that.

Quote:
even after all the spec shown above clearly amd "seams" to be better than C2D e6600, but everywhere i check e6600 is way better than amd - how is this possible, what does C2D have that amd doesnt?


The E6600 doesn't beat every AMD chip in everything. Put the E6600 against a 5400+ or 5600+ and watch the E6600 get shown the door in almost all applications. The Core 2 Duos are extremely good at integer and SSE math and applications that use that heavily will favor the C2D. Number-crunching applications that don't use SSE much and hit the RAM very heavily will favor the AMD CPUs and their superior non-SSE floating-point performance and increased memory bandwidth.

Quote:
check this out: e6400 ties amd 4800+ inthe benchmark of unreal tournament(and almost everything)..so which one of these is better now?!


Whatever one you can build a system around that suits your needs best and for less money. Generally, Core 2 Duo chips will give a better bang for the buck in gaming due to the heavy use of SSE in the games.

Quote:
Doesnt speed of the processor make a difference? PD960 with 3.6ghz everything same as C2D but only difference is the fsb, with PD960 with 800mhz and C2D with 1066mhz? so how come C2D even e6300 is faster than top range in PD (960)?


The Pentium D and Core 2 Duo (also Athlon X2) are wildly different architectures. The Pentium D doesn't do much with each clock tick, so it needs a lot of them to get things done. The Pentium Ds were beaten by the Athlon X2s, and since the Athlon X2s get beaten in games by the Core 2 Duos, it stands to reason that the Core 2 Duos are a ton better at games than the Pentium Ds. The speed of the CPU determining performance can only be compared when the architecture is similar.

The FSB is simply a pathway to get data to and from the core. The Pentium D 955EE and 965EE's FSBs might run at the same speed as the Core 2 Duos' do, but what's behind the FSB couldn't be more different.

Quote:
and what difference does it make if a cpu has a total 4 or 2mb cache?


L2 is basically extremely high-speed RAM that's on the CPU die. More L2 means that the CPU doesn't need to wait for data to come all the way from RAM before it works on it. If the path to the RAM is very slow (such as it can be while going through the FSB) or your CPU core is extremely hungry for data, increasing the L2 size has massive performance gains up to a certain point. That point seems to be 2MB or under, so going from 2MB L2 -> 4MB L2 brings a small (roughly 7%) gain in speed for the Core 2 Duo, not a very massive gain.

Quote:
im not planing to overclock this time, as i already have fried a cpu and the mama board, including a hole in my wallet from the way i spent so much on it :p  so please answer disregarding over clocking, and processors such as en6700, C2Dextreme, athlon64-fx, extreme cpus which i cant afford.

so out of e6400,PD950(3.4ghz,4mb),PD945(3.4ghz,4mb), amd 4600+(2.4ghz,2mb),4400+(2.2ghz,4mb) which should i buy?


First of all, disregard the Pentium Ds. The Athlon 64 X2s and Core 2 Duos are far better CPUs. I assume that you're gaming, so the E6400 and X2 4600+ will perform rather similarly with games. 2x1MB L2 cache AMD CPUs don't perform that much better than AMD CPUs with 2x512K L2 (gain is about 7-8% tops, just like 2M vs. 4M C2Ds) so the 2x512K models would be the ones you want as they're less expensive than the 2x1M units.

If I had to recommend a CPU...it would probably be the AM2 4600+ as it's $208 versus the $230 of the E6400. Performance will be similar in games and a decent AM2 motherboard is generally a little less expensive than a decent Core 2 Duo board, too. However, this assumes you swore off OCing as you said. The E6400 will OC MUCH better than the 4600+ will.
January 16, 2007 5:07:07 PM

Quote:

so out of e6400,PD950(3.4ghz,4mb),PD945(3.4ghz,4mb), amd 4600+(2.4ghz,2mb),4400+(2.2ghz,4mb) which should i buy?

thanks,


Why not insert the E6300 in that list? for the price less then the e6400 you could just save the money for something else or get a better cpu fan for overclocking and you would get better performance then the listed cpu except E6400 of course.
January 16, 2007 5:49:53 PM

Quote:
Why not insert the E6300 in that list? for the price less then the e6400 you could just save the money for something else or get a better cpu fan for overclocking and you would get better performance then the listed cpu except E6400 of course.


Agreed. Especially since They did the article about the e6300 OC!
January 16, 2007 5:57:34 PM

And yeah i read the article and a E6300 oc to 3.4ghz beat the Intel X6800 wich its really high price. Yeah i know its a STOCK X6800, oc it would def beat the e6300 oc but for the price with little more on better cooling you know you could have a CPU better then X6800. But atm, until new game is out you dont really need to overclock the E6300, unless you need that power like you playing 3 game at time but still i can play oblivion, fear, wow at the same time on my S754 3200+(Single Core) withou lag, crash.
January 17, 2007 10:03:15 AM

Damn! seems like there was alot that i didnt know! :p 

Thanks guys, really appreciate it,(finally a peaceful mind :D )

thanks for the tip on how the oc e6300 (3.4ghz) can be better than a higher stock processor.

As you all know.. i havent been successful at oc'ing. so If i get a e6300, and then over clock it successfully with some (pro) guidance, and there is no problem that i could notice like hangovers or crashes; but wouldnt oc'ing the cpu get it heated up alot more than its ment to (as it is pushed beyond its stock spec), in turn shorten the lifespan of the cpu? i mean i could use a powerful cpu fan and more fans to keep the tower amazingly cool, but wouldnt this have an effect on the cpu as it is still generating alot of heat and then suddenly being cooled down, wouldnt the cpu contract and expand reducing the lifespan or something like that? (how long would it last anyway,if it was oc?)?

Just to be aware.. what is the other side to oc'ing, as in the negative effect? what are the side effects,etc?

so the e6300 could be stably oc to 3.4ghz(is this the highest stable oc?),
so how far (without and with considering stability) could the e6400 be oc?
and what about the am2 athlon64x2 4600+, 4400+, 4200+ ? (which on amd is better to oc, 65nm or 90nm, 65w or 89w?)

man you guys damn helpful! thanks alot :D 

by the way are those over clocked CPUs in Tom's cpu chart ?

and you might wanna take a look at this (this is how i got the wrong idea!)
http://www.amd.com/gb-uk/Processors/ProductInformation/...

thanks again,
January 17, 2007 11:55:41 AM

Quote:
but the X2 line has higher clock speeds than the Core 2 Duos do, so performance is similar up until the high end, where the Core 2 Duos have clock speed parity and outpace the X2s.

Well, I guess you have forgot Core2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz. Also, even if you skip the X6800, there is no X2 that can perform similar like E6700. E6600 is not a high end CPU, but it outperforms all X2 CPUs. In average it is also marginaly faster than the FX-62, considering real-world applications:
AnandTech
Bit Tech
ByteSector
Chile Hardware
Club IC
Computer Base
Digit Life
Extreme Tech
Firing Squad
GD Hardware
GotFrag
Guru3D
HardOCP
Hardware Secrets
HardwareZone
Hardware.fr
Hexus
Hot Hardware
Legion Hardware
Legit Reviews
MadBox PC
Mad Shrimps
Maximo PC
NeoSeeker
OCAU
OC Workbench
PC Perspective
Phoronix
Planet X64
Sharky Extreme
Sim HQ
Tech Report
Tom's Hardware
Trusted Reviews
TweakTown
Xbit Labs


Quote:
The FX-74 is competitive with the QX6700, with the QX6700 generally winning the single-threaded game benchmarks and the FX-74 winning most other benchmarks.

I must dissagre with this also!
QX6700 outperforms FX-74 in most single-threaded and multi-threaded benchmarks:
AbcNews
Anandtech
DailyTech
ExtremTech
FiringSquad
HardOCP
Hexus
HotHardware
HWupgrade
LegitReviews (overclocked FX-74)
PC.Watch
TechReport
THG
XbitLabs

Quote:
The E6600 doesn't beat every AMD chip in everything. Put the E6600 against a 5400+ or 5600+ and watch the E6600 get shown the door in almost all applications.

Actually the E6600 outperfroms both X2 5400+ and 5600+ in almost all applications!
Although their price on the AMD price list is ridicluous and uncompetetive, no shop has any 5400+ or 5600+. You can't find one.

Quote:
I assume that you're gaming, so the E6400 and X2 4600+ will perform rather similarly with games.

I think that E6300 is more X2 4600+ equivalent in gaming performance. C2D E6400 and X2 4600+ will have similar performance in gaming, only when the graphics card will bottleneck the systems. Chek the links with benchmarks, upper in this post.

BTW, excellent post. I agree with everything else :lol:  l
January 17, 2007 12:30:21 PM

Quote:
Man, i hate this!!!
choosing a CPU!! the things u have to go thru, just when you have made up your mind, they put something new out!


This happens to everybody, you're not alone. Generally the cure for this is to wait until you really need a new computer before you buy one. Your current machine not cutting it will spur you to replace it as soon as possible so you won't be tempted to wait any more.

Quote:
I read thru alot of the forums and the official sites of both Amd and Intel.. and looking at Toms cpu chart and benchmarks, C2D is better than both AMD athlon64x2 and intel P.D 9xx


Manufacturers' websites are generally good sources of technical information about the products but are notoriously poor at giving *competitive* information. It would be like Ford putting on their website that Chevy trucks are more reliable- you're just not going to see it.

Sites like Tom's are decent at evaluating the processors and determining which one is better at certain things. However, your mileage may vary with how you use your machine and what you run on it. I run very few applications that Tom's uses to benchmark their CPUs with and as such, I generally look at broad trends. Here is a brief summary of their reviews:

1. Pentium D 800s are basically two P4 Prescotts put together on one CPU package. This makes extremely hot-running CPUs that are beaten by each and every AMD Athlon X2 and Core 2 Duo unless they are overclocked wildly, such as the Pentium D 805 that Tom's got up to 4.1 GHz (burning several hundred watts just on the CPU in the process!)

2. The Pentium D 900 series are improved versions of the Pentium D 800 that have more L2 cache but basically their main advantage over the 800s is that they run significantly cooler at the same speeds. But they're still quite hot. The upper range of the Pentium D 900 series (945, 950, 955EE, 960, 965EE) are competitive in performance to the lower-end Athlon 64 X2s and Core 2 Duos.

3. The Athlon 64 X2 series are very good processors based on the Athlon 64 architecture. They consist of only one processor die with both cores on it and have an integrated memory controller and a HyperTransport serial bus to talk to the chipset instead of a frontside bus that does both functions. The X2s are somewhat slower clock-for-clock than the Core 2 Duo CPUs, especially in programs that heavily use SSE optimizations (some encoders, many games) but the X2 line has higher clock speeds than the Core 2 Duos do, so performance is similar up until the high end, where the Core 2 Duos have clock speed parity and outpace the X2s.

4. The Core 2 Duo is basically a heavily massaged Core Duo, which is in itself a heavily massaged dual-core version of the Pentium 3 as opposed to the Pentium 4-based Pentium Ds. This means that the Core 2 Duo runs far cooler than the Pentium Ds and performs much better. The Core 2 Duo line has the overall performance crown with the Core 2 Duo X6800 beating the AMD X2 line. The Core 2 Duo series is very well-regarded for overclocking prowess, while the current 90 nm X2 line doesn't go much above 3.2 GHz no matter what you do to it.

5. The Core 2 Quadros are made up of two Core 2 Duo dies stuck together in one CPU package, similar to how the Pentium Ds were two Pentium 4s stuck in one package. These chips are currently very expensive and run very hot- similar to the Pentium D 800 series. Clock speeds are 2.67 GHz and 2.40 GHz and performance is similar to the similarly-clocked Core 2 Duos in single or two-threaded applications. Programs that can use 4 cores will run much faster on the C2Q than the C2D, but on Windows, basically that's limited to some video encoders and rendering software.

6. AMD's QuadFX is basically a dual-Opteron workstation that's priced very aggressively and uses normal unbuffered RAM instead of ECC RAM used in the dual or quad Opteron setups. The QuadFX has three dual-core processor pair sets- the FX-70 (2.6 GHz) FX-72 (2.8 GHz) and FX-74 (3.0 GHz.) The FX-74 is competitive with the QX6700, with the QX6700 generally winning the single-threaded game benchmarks and the FX-74 winning most other benchmarks. The FX-70 is probably the most intersting as it's the least expensive way to get four cores (roughly $1000 for CPUs + motherboard while a single Q6600 is something near $900) and the QuadFX motherboard is upgradeable to two quad-core CPUs when they come out later this year.

Quote:
but what bothers me is..

AMD's new AM2 athlon64x2 processors got twice as much fsb than C2D, 2000mhz where as C2D 1066mhz. not to mention AMD has a total memory bandwidth of 20Gb/s where as intel mama-boards' total is only 10.8Gb/s! The cpu speed difference isnt that much of a deal, comparing C2D
e6600 with am2 athlon64x 4800+ ,both of them at 2.4Ghz and 4mb cache (intel's 2 cores share the cache, where as amd has 2mb separate cache dedicated to each core!)

doesnt more Fsb mean better flow? with better flow and more memory bandwidth mean better overall better performance?


Like Jack said, the AMD CPUs don't have an FSB. K8 CPUs have an integrated memory controller that links directly from the processor to the RAM. Socket AM2 Athlon 64 X2s can handle dual-channel DDR2-800, so they have a memory bandwidth equivalent to what a 1600 MHz FSB can provide. They also have a HyperTransport serial link between the CPU and chipset that's capable of pushing 2 bytes per clock at a rate of 1 GHz in both directions at one time. This gives 4 GB/sec in bandwidth in each direction simultaneously between the CPU and chipset. Intel's FSB carries both memory data and CPU <-> chipset traffic, although there is not that much of the latter and in Intel's case, much of what has to go through AMD's HTT link does not even hit the CPU as Jack also noted.

AMD's CPUs have more bandwidth than they can handle at the present, which is why the transition from socket 939 to Socket AM2 doubled the memory bandwidth that the CPU got but didn't increase performance. This will greatly benefit them when quad-core CPUs come out, but it doesn't do much now. Intel's FSB can't scale that much further than it already has, but Intel coupled a reasonably memory-miserly processor in the Core 2 Duo with a ton of cache and excellent prefetching algorithms to extract the most out of the old FSB. Intel also made some key architectural improvements, particularly the ability to execute SSE instructions in one clock tick instead of two (like all previous CPUs do.) As such, the C2D performs excellently on applications that use SSE instructions heavily, like games and certain encoders. That is why the Core 2 Duos are faster than the Athlon X2s even though AMD's CPUs are awash in bandwidth and Intel's are not.

The Core 2 Quadro is about as much as Intel's FSB can handle at the present, so watch to see what Intel does when it wants to make an 8-core CPU. I'll give you a hint: Intel is making a 1300-some-odd pin socket for these CPUs and it's not because they need 600 extra pins for extra power. The LGA 775/771 sockets provide enough of that.

Quote:
even after all the spec shown above clearly amd "seams" to be better than C2D e6600, but everywhere i check e6600 is way better than amd - how is this possible, what does C2D have that amd doesnt?


The E6600 doesn't beat every AMD chip in everything. Put the E6600 against a 5400+ or 5600+ and watch the E6600 get shown the door in almost all applications. The Core 2 Duos are extremely good at integer and SSE math and applications that use that heavily will favor the C2D. Number-crunching applications that don't use SSE much and hit the RAM very heavily will favor the AMD CPUs and their superior non-SSE floating-point performance and increased memory bandwidth.

Quote:
check this out: e6400 ties amd 4800+ inthe benchmark of unreal tournament(and almost everything)..so which one of these is better now?!


Whatever one you can build a system around that suits your needs best and for less money. Generally, Core 2 Duo chips will give a better bang for the buck in gaming due to the heavy use of SSE in the games.

Quote:
Doesnt speed of the processor make a difference? PD960 with 3.6ghz everything same as C2D but only difference is the fsb, with PD960 with 800mhz and C2D with 1066mhz? so how come C2D even e6300 is faster than top range in PD (960)?


The Pentium D and Core 2 Duo (also Athlon X2) are wildly different architectures. The Pentium D doesn't do much with each clock tick, so it needs a lot of them to get things done. The Pentium Ds were beaten by the Athlon X2s, and since the Athlon X2s get beaten in games by the Core 2 Duos, it stands to reason that the Core 2 Duos are a ton better at games than the Pentium Ds. The speed of the CPU determining performance can only be compared when the architecture is similar.

The FSB is simply a pathway to get data to and from the core. The Pentium D 955EE and 965EE's FSBs might run at the same speed as the Core 2 Duos' do, but what's behind the FSB couldn't be more different.

Quote:
and what difference does it make if a cpu has a total 4 or 2mb cache?


L2 is basically extremely high-speed RAM that's on the CPU die. More L2 means that the CPU doesn't need to wait for data to come all the way from RAM before it works on it. If the path to the RAM is very slow (such as it can be while going through the FSB) or your CPU core is extremely hungry for data, increasing the L2 size has massive performance gains up to a certain point. That point seems to be 2MB or under, so going from 2MB L2 -> 4MB L2 brings a small (roughly 7%) gain in speed for the Core 2 Duo, not a very massive gain.

Quote:
im not planing to overclock this time, as i already have fried a cpu and the mama board, including a hole in my wallet from the way i spent so much on it :p  so please answer disregarding over clocking, and processors such as en6700, C2Dextreme, athlon64-fx, extreme cpus which i cant afford.

so out of e6400,PD950(3.4ghz,4mb),PD945(3.4ghz,4mb), amd 4600+(2.4ghz,2mb),4400+(2.2ghz,4mb) which should i buy?


First of all, disregard the Pentium Ds. The Athlon 64 X2s and Core 2 Duos are far better CPUs. I assume that you're gaming, so the E6400 and X2 4600+ will perform rather similarly with games. 2x1MB L2 cache AMD CPUs don't perform that much better than AMD CPUs with 2x512K L2 (gain is about 7-8% tops, just like 2M vs. 4M C2Ds) so the 2x512K models would be the ones you want as they're less expensive than the 2x1M units.

If I had to recommend a CPU...it would probably be the AM2 4600+ as it's $208 versus the $230 of the E6400. Performance will be similar in games and a decent AM2 motherboard is generally a little less expensive than a decent Core 2 Duo board, too. However, this assumes you swore off OCing as you said. The E6400 will OC MUCH better than the 4600+ will.

Excellent post MU_Engineer.

These are the posts that makes the forums look unbiased.

Also, you forgot K8's 64-bit advantage over C2D and QuadFX advantage over intel's dual-die kentsfield on Windows Vista thanks to a better NUMA handling. Don't forget that C2D is prone to cache trashing due to the nature of the shared L2 cache.

Every processor (call it AMD or intel) has their ups and cons.

In conclusion, it all depends on the apps you use for a living.
January 17, 2007 12:51:13 PM

I'd say the 5000+ is more competitive with the E6400, the 4800+ with the E6300.

Benchmarks for the 5400+ and 5600+ please?
January 17, 2007 1:33:53 PM

can ppl stop quoting all those long posts, just say something like (nice post mr /mrs blah blah)

Any who, as has already been mentioned, from your list the e6400 is the best option.
January 17, 2007 1:59:05 PM

Kudos to all you guys for such a detailed analysis. I learnt a lot. keep it up~!
January 17, 2007 2:11:04 PM

Quote:
Although their price on the AMD price list is ridicluous and uncompetetive, no shop has any 5400+ or 5600+. You can't find one.


If the price did become competitive Intel would just drop their prices or do what they'll probably do when Barcalona retakes the crown. Up the clock speeds (or overclocking as we call it). We all know how many Mhz Intel have to play with in their pockets :) 

The only reason i think AMD parts are at all competitive is because Intel are allowing them to be. Intel also don't want to be competitive with theirselves either. They have a good processor with plenty of headroom in its pocket. Why would they want to put themselves under unnecessary pressure to deliver a new faster product when they can make a current one last longer and take in more money.
January 17, 2007 2:20:17 PM

Remmember woof if you want to overclock your processor you need a good motherboard to do it stable. There a website that show the database of cpu OC 'stable' min and max: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1075792
this will give you an idea with wich board and cooling. And the CPU CD2 E4300 is out now, the lowest CD2 cpu and a easy overclockable one, go read the review out there : http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=290...
As you can see in all the benchmark the e4300 oc to 3.4 beat almost all the test over the X6800 ! And trust me you don't want a AM2 amd cpu, you will regret it later, you can go get a e4300 and like 1-2 year later you can get a quad core wich will probly surpass all am2 cpu on the market. Those who will say you amd is better then CD2 are some fans boy, anyways go check benchmark of every cpu, most of cd2 win over amd ( price wise cpu ). Benchmark dont lie.

Edit:
Forgot to mention that amd cpu dont oc as well like the cd2 do.
January 17, 2007 2:30:55 PM

To Jack and everyone who replied to the original poster I must say a job well done. This thread is one of the best I have read here. No flaming just information to properly persuade opinion. Nice job!
January 17, 2007 2:46:23 PM

Quote:

Excellent post MU_Engineer.

These are the posts that makes the forums look unbiased.

Also, you forgot K8's 64-bit advantage over C2D and QuadFX advantage over intel's dual-die kentsfield on Windows Vista thanks to a better NUMA handling. Don't forget that C2D is prone to cache trashing due to the nature of the shared L2 cache.

Every processor (call it AMD or intel) has their ups and cons.

In conclusion, it all depends on the apps you use for a living.


Based on your nick, I can asume that you are a AMD-fanboy. Based on the bold sentences, I can asume you're a total deuche.

K8's advantage over C2D is minimal, perhaps as little as 2%. That doesn't change the fact that C2D performs a whole much more against its AMD counterparts.

And have you seen some benchmarks in Vista with QuadFX and QX6700 that I haven't? If I had to put my money on one of them, it sure wouldn't be on the QuadFX.

But who knows, perhaps Vista is so good it, say, makes QuadFX perform that much better. And what, if it's not too much to ask, lowers Power-consumption by 70%. Damn, that would be nice.
January 17, 2007 3:12:13 PM

I like the way amd replyed to the Quad core Intel Cpu, putting 2 cpu Dual Core for making 4 core lawl, wasn't Opteron Dual Core was already on the market ? And no im not a intel fan, i have myself a amd owners but im really disapointed into amd. And where the **** are the 65nm amd processor, they say they have on the market but i can't find any.
January 17, 2007 3:18:19 PM

Barcelona_Xtreme,

I keep seeing cache trashing warning about C2D from the AMD side. Since you mentioned it, can you explain in detail and provide test data if such thing has occured with C2D in a similar manner that MU_engineer or Jack did? Hypothesis, solid data... and conclusion, the whole 9 yards.

I like to know all this thing, since my field of work is not computer, but RF and analog design.

Thanks.
January 17, 2007 3:22:15 PM

Quote:

Excellent post MU_Engineer.

These are the posts that makes the forums look unbiased.

Also, you forgot K8's 64-bit advantage over C2D and QuadFX advantage over intel's dual-die kentsfield on Windows Vista thanks to a better NUMA handling. Don't forget that C2D is prone to cache trashing due to the nature of the shared L2 cache.

Every processor (call it AMD or intel) has their ups and cons.

In conclusion, it all depends on the apps you use for a living.


Based on your nick, I can asume that you are a AMD-fanboy. Based on the bold sentences, I can asume you're a total deuche.

K8's advantage over C2D is minimal, perhaps as little as 2%. That doesn't change the fact that C2D performs a whole much more against its AMD counterparts.

And have you seen some benchmarks in Vista with QuadFX and QX6700 that I haven't? If I had to put my money on one of them, it sure wouldn't be on the QuadFX.

But who knows, perhaps Vista is so good it, say, makes QuadFX perform that much better. And what, if it's not too much to ask, lowers Power-consumption by 70%. Damn, that would be nice.
Actually, QX6700 outpeforms FX-74 with or without NUMA enabled, in every Windows(including Vista) in most single-threaded and multi-threaded apps.
For example Windows Vista RC2:











Link!

The only benchmarks where FX-74 wins against QX6700 are the syntehtic benchmark Cinebench 9.5 and Sony Vegas + DVD 7.0b(Render to other track). In all other benchmarks C2 QX6700 is outperforming FX-74.
January 18, 2007 4:26:47 PM

Quote:
Barcelona_Xtreme,

I keep seeing cache trashing warning about C2D from the AMD side. Since you mentioned it, can you explain in detail and provide test data if such thing has occured with C2D in a similar manner that MU_engineer or Jack did? Hypothesis, solid data... and conclusion, the whole 9 yards.

I like to know all this thing, since my field of work is not computer, but RF and analog design.

Thanks.


Well, it's really simple and even common sense tells you that.

It's no secret that C2D is prone to cache trashing due to the nature of a shared cache architecture. That's the reason why AMD will use a hybrid cache hierarchy structure in K8L (independent L1 and L2 caches and a shared L3 cache).

A shared cache structure is not that good when it comes to multitasking. As an example (for C2D), launch one demanding app and later on launch another app that its very CPU demanding. You won't notice anything but when you compare it to a K8 processor you'll see thet the K8 is better suited for multitasking (depending on the app you use). C2D's shared cache is good for single tasking, but once yu start opening more and more apps its performance starts to degrade due to cache trashing. K8L will fix this out in a clever manner.
January 18, 2007 4:27:51 PM

Quote:

Excellent post MU_Engineer.

These are the posts that makes the forums look unbiased.

Also, you forgot K8's 64-bit advantage over C2D and QuadFX advantage over intel's dual-die kentsfield on Windows Vista thanks to a better NUMA handling. Don't forget that C2D is prone to cache trashing due to the nature of the shared L2 cache.

Every processor (call it AMD or intel) has their ups and cons.

In conclusion, it all depends on the apps you use for a living.


Based on your nick, I can asume that you are a AMD-fanboy. Based on the bold sentences, I can asume you're a total deuche.

K8's advantage over C2D is minimal, perhaps as little as 2%. That doesn't change the fact that C2D performs a whole much more against its AMD counterparts.

And have you seen some benchmarks in Vista with QuadFX and QX6700 that I haven't? If I had to put my money on one of them, it sure wouldn't be on the QuadFX.

But who knows, perhaps Vista is so good it, say, makes QuadFX perform that much better. And what, if it's not too much to ask, lowers Power-consumption by 70%. Damn, that would be nice.
Actually, QX6700 outpeforms FX-74 with or without NUMA enabled, in every Windows(including Vista) in most single-threaded and multi-threaded apps.
For example Windows Vista RC2:











Link!

The only benchmarks where FX-74 wins against QX6700 are the syntehtic benchmark Cinebench 9.5 and Sony Vegas + DVD 7.0b(Render to other track). In all other benchmarks C2 QX6700 is outperforming FX-74.

Please check this follow-up from Hexus (too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks):
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7505
January 18, 2007 4:45:30 PM

Quote:

Please check this follow-up from Hexus (too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks):
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7505


From that same article, their conclusions:

Quote:

In virtually every benchmark we've tried so far, AMD's quad-core offering has been beaten by Intel's; it's as simple as that.

With the FX-7x series processor, AMD's Quad FX just doesn't have enough real-world performance to compete. It may have umpteen architectural advantages but, presently, those just don't appear to be giving it any real-world benefit over Core 2 Quad. Throughout our dealings with AMD during this review process, it has become clear that Quad FX is more a proof of concept than a platform intended to provide stiff competition. AMD is setting this up ready for the 'native quad-core' processors it has planned for later in 2007, and that's a good thing. It looks like those couldn't come any sooner, as the FX-70s are shaping up to be an AMD era which perhaps we'd all rather forget.
January 18, 2007 5:32:08 PM

Quote:
Please check this follow-up from Hexus (too bad they didn't include 64-bit benchmarks):
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7505

It is a very poor and included few benchmarks in Windows XP 32bit.
So whats new special in this article?

The only benchmark where Quad FX-74 is toe is POV Ray 3.7BETA:



In everything else it looses agianst Core2 Quad:






Also should be noted that QuadFX used 4GB(4x1GB) DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 and 2x150GB 10K RPM WD Raptor in RAID 0 and WD Caviar SE 500GB.
Core2 QX6700 used only halg of same the same RAM type(2x1GB), while using only one slow hard drive Seagate 160GB 7.2K RPM.

So, the article proves that C2 QX6700 is outpeforming QFX-74. This is another article from HEXUS and it also points at the C2Q superiorty over QFX: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7348&page=1
January 18, 2007 5:40:25 PM

Quote:
Man, i hate this!!!
choosing a CPU!! the things u have to go thru, just when you have made up your mind, they put something new out!

I read thru alot of the forums and the official sites of both Amd and Intel.. and looking at Toms cpu chart and benchmarks, C2D is better than both AMD athlon64x2 and intel P.D 9xx

but what bothers me is..

AMD's new AM2 athlon64x2 processors got twice as much fsb than C2D, 2000mhz where as C2D 1066mhz. not to mention AMD has a total memory bandwidth of 20Gb/s where as intel mama-boards' total is only 10.8Gb/s! The cpu speed difference isnt that much of a deal, comparing C2D
e6600 with am2 athlon64x 4800+ ,both of them at 2.4Ghz and 4mb cache (intel's 2 cores share the cache, where as amd has 2mb separate cache dedicated to each core!)

doesnt more Fsb mean better flow? with better flow and more memory bandwidth mean better overall better performance?

even after all the spec shown above clearly amd "seams" to be better than C2D e6600, but everywhere i check e6600 is way better than amd - how is this possible, what does C2D have that amd doesnt?

check this out: e6400 ties amd 4800+ inthe benchmark of unreal tournament(and almost everything)..so which one of these is better now?!

Doesnt speed of the processor make a difference? PD960 with 3.6ghz everything same as C2D but only difference is the fsb, with PD960 with 800mhz and C2D with 1066mhz? so how come C2D even e6300 is faster than top range in PD (960)?

and what difference does it make if a cpu has a total 4 or 2mb cache?

im not planing to overclock this time, as i already have fried a cpu and the mama board, including a hole in my wallet from the way i spent so much on it :p  so please answer disregarding over clocking, and processors such as en6700, C2Dextreme, athlon64-fx, extreme cpus which i cant afford,

so out of e6400,PD950(3.4ghz,4mb),PD945(3.4ghz,4mb), amd 4600+(2.4ghz,2mb),4400+(2.2ghz,4mb) which should i buy?

thanks,


Just give up and buy Core 2. It doesn't matter if X2 is more than fast enough for the current SW landscape, because Core 2 is a little faster (in benchmarks not realworld) X2 is no longer worth buying.

What that means is that unless Intel keeps it up all of these Core 2 folks wll have to sell their CU and get the new Barcelona quads
January 18, 2007 6:29:44 PM

BM, why would you buy an AMD CPU when you know that for the same, or slightly cheaper, price you can buy an Intel CPU that performs better ?

Can't you get your head round this ?
January 18, 2007 6:30:17 PM

Quote:
Just give up and buy Core 2. It doesn't matter if X2 is more than fast enough for the current SW landscape, because Core 2 is a little faster (in benchmarks not realworld) X2 is no longer worth buying.


Right now, a Pentium 4 and A64 are fast enough to run the current SW. What's your point?

Quote:
What that means is that unless Intel keeps it up all of these Core 2 folks wll have to sell their CU and get the new Barcelona quads


Why? For what earthly reason would they need to do that exactly?
January 18, 2007 6:47:52 PM

Baron,

Correct me if I got this wrong. If cache thrashing occurs, the CPU performance will suffer badly. Still, there is no tests and results on C2D's cache thrashing problem.

Your hypothesis and the explanation for it are great. But you still don't have any test data that backs up your hypothesis.

From a scientific deduction, Barcelona's statement is still a hypothesis.

Though I am not done reading Jack's links, the info are very credible. I may even say that cache thrashing is well averted in C2D.

Thanks anyway.
January 18, 2007 8:53:18 PM

Quote:
Just give up and buy Core 2. It doesn't matter if X2 is more than fast enough for the current SW landscape, because Core 2 is a little faster (in benchmarks not realworld) X2 is no longer worth buying.

What that means is that unless Intel keeps it up all of these Core 2 folks wll have to sell their CU and get the new Barcelona quads


Totally dude. C2D is like, too fast for most people you know? X2 is just right on the sweet spot. Not too fast, not too slow.

Hey, I think I've got a new marketing slogan for AMD:

Not too fast, not too slow. Introducing AMD's 'Just Right' initiative. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Going by your logic, I guess AMD shouldn't bother with Barcelona. Who would buy it anyway? X2s will be more than adequate.
January 19, 2007 4:36:01 AM

Quote:
Thrashing possibility exists in any victim cache situation in which memory resources are shared... L2 or L3 it won't matter, thrashing could happen. However, you did not answer the question -- please provide a link to a systematic study that shows something like, say, Doom3 or Divx suffering from cache thrashing?? Otherwise, this is nothing but BS. Quite frankly, your concept of 'hybrid' approach as a means to mitigate thrashing has already demonstrated the sheer ignoarnce you possess, therefore asking you to explain or provide data is likely futile.


There is only one review for the decreased cache thrashing when both the cores require more than 2MB of L2 cache. But I can't remember where the review is.

Also I don't think the situation is frequently encountered.
January 19, 2007 10:15:13 AM

hey!

finally got my self a system, i went for the e6400, but before i Oc it i would like to see for myself how OCing really is.. so i need some help to Oc my old P4..

i need some pro OCing help from you guys.. i made a new thread, please check this out (to everyone, thanks in advance :D ) (and please reply in that thread itself):

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
January 19, 2007 10:44:27 AM

Core 2 duo 6600 is by far the best choice out there imo. Whatever that's worth. LOL
!