Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

AMD/Intel version comparison

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
March 31, 2007 5:02:38 AM

Hello.

After checking some of the *amusing* topics in this section... I believe I am about to turn to the dark side and buy Intel.

However... I need a comparison chart where I can see AMD vs Intel CPUs, like lets just say, the "direct" competitors for each other, so I can compare prices in amazon or the like (which is where Im ordering them).

But I found nothing in the main site, and I dont see anything in the stickies unless Im blind (in that case my apologies).

This is mostly in regard to this topic, were I see for example AMD Athlon X2 4600+ is comparable to the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300.

However its weird because on amazon for instance I dont see any E6300 but mostly E4xxx.

Anyway, if someone could help me out, I would appreciate it.

Thanks for your time :) 

PD: If I did not explain myself enough... this is sort of what I want [ clicky ] but for CPUs (see "Videocard Hierarchy Chart", thats the thing ;)  )

More about : amd intel version comparison

March 31, 2007 5:14:55 AM

Rule #1. Forget Amazon. Go to NewEgg.

Rule #2. Forget "Direct Competitors". You'll just get a zillion reasons why you can't directly compare this with that... blahblahblah.

Rule #3. These days if you want really comprehensive and accurate tests, reviews and shootouts, you're unfortunately no longer in the right place. :cry: 
March 31, 2007 6:09:01 AM

Quote:
I believe I am about to turn to the darkside and buy Intel.


Come to the darkside.... we have COOKIES!!!! :twisted:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 31, 2007 6:09:55 AM

As for Rule #1, ok, newegg.

As for Rule #3, I notice the tone and I think I know what you mean.

As for Rule #2, there is got to be something eh?
Like in the topic I linked, the guy said those were two "comparable" processors... I know, I know.. it is not like I can take them both and they will be exactly the same etc... but there has to be a hierarchy right? :?

Because in the old times I think it was a bit easier for me to figure out what Intel processor was AMD's competitor and so on... but now I see so much on both sides that is hard for me to know what can be compared at "some extent " to the other :?

Quote:
Come to the darkside.... we have COOKIES!!!! :twisted:

Alright, do you guys have a hierarchy chart as well? :p 
March 31, 2007 6:26:41 AM

Simple fact video cards play games not CPUs so pick a great video card first then build the system around it.

So fi, a X2-3800+ OC'd to 3Ghz (similar to an E6600) and an 8800GTS320

-or-

a E6600, a $150 mobo, and a X1950Pro

.. see my point it's all about budget and purpose

if money is no object C2Q & 2x 8800GTX768s TADAAA

E6300 has higher FSB than E4300 negligable, and no VIS. woopeee

do me a favor get an E6600 or better or an X2-6000+ or worse
March 31, 2007 6:48:31 AM

Quote:
Simple fact video cards play games not CPUs so pick a great video card first then build the system around it.

So fi, a X2-3800+ OC'd to 3Ghz (similar to an E6600) and an 8800GTS320

-or-

a E6600, a $150 mobo, and a X1950Pro

.. see my point it's all about budget and purpose

if money is no object C2Q & 2x 8800GTX768s TADAAA

E6300 has higher FSB than E4300 negligable, and no VIS. woopeee

do me a favor get an E6600 or better or an X2-6000+ or worse


Ahh, your not going to get a x2 3800 up to stock E6600. Not without spending a bunch of extra money on cooling/mobo/highend RAM.
The X23800+8800 argument has never been and never will be valid. Why? Because if all you want is a fast gaming machine, you can skip the $100 x2 3800 and the $600 8800, + the $100 (minimum) RAM and $$$HDDs/PSUs/Optical drives etc and................buy yourself a console. You'll save a buttload of money.
March 31, 2007 7:20:03 AM

Quote:
thats funny cause im playing games on an X3000 gfx part (which i am sure you will say sucks) but it plays games great.


It DOES SUCK if you payed $130 for it ... I've played many games on my 845G back in the day.
March 31, 2007 7:25:42 AM

Quote:
Simple fact video cards play games not CPUs so pick a great video card first then build the system around it.

So fi, a X2-3800+ OC'd to 3Ghz (similar to an E6600) and an 8800GTS320

-or-

a E6600, a $150 mobo, and a X1950Pro

.. see my point it's all about budget and purpose

if money is no object C2Q & 2x 8800GTX768s TADAAA

E6300 has higher FSB than E4300 negligable, and no VIS. woopeee

do me a favor get an E6600 or better or an X2-6000+ or worse


Ahh, your not going to get a x2 3800 up to stock E6600. Not without spending a bunch of extra money on cooling/mobo/highend RAM.
The X23800+8800 argument has never been and never will be valid. Why? Because if all you want is a fast gaming machine, you can skip the $100 x2 3800 and the $600 8800, + the $100 (minimum) RAM and $$$HDDs/PSUs/Optical drives etc and................buy yourself a console. You'll save a buttload of money.

?? Show me a console that plays WoW, PC FPSs, etc. and your logic makes sense. AMD cpus in the last 6 weeks (new step) are OCing mad 2.6-2.8 a lock. HQ parts not req'd we aren't talking Intel here.
March 31, 2007 7:52:51 AM

X3000 sucks too compared to a $120 video card what's your point. I have a 4 year old P4 Northwood 2.0B OC to 3.0 like ice and a 4 year old TI4200-64MB 128-bit OC 25% and it would bone your X3000 to china and back. Just fine is a matter of opinion.

You have an E6600 with integrated video, once again whats your point. Obviously when you spec'd that system you didn't budget a card to play next-gen games.
March 31, 2007 8:08:52 AM

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:
March 31, 2007 9:14:32 AM

Quote:
Simple fact video cards play games not CPUs so pick a great video card first then build the system around it.

So fi, a X2-3800+ OC'd to 3Ghz (similar to an E6600) and an 8800GTS320

-or-

a E6600, a $150 mobo, and a X1950Pro

.. see my point it's all about budget and purpose

if money is no object C2Q & 2x 8800GTX768s TADAAA

E6300 has higher FSB than E4300 negligable, and no VIS. woopeee

do me a favor get an E6600 or better or an X2-6000+ or worse


Ahh, your not going to get a x2 3800 up to stock E6600. Not without spending a bunch of extra money on cooling/mobo/highend RAM.
The X23800+8800 argument has never been and never will be valid. Why? Because if all you want is a fast gaming machine, you can skip the $100 x2 3800 and the $600 8800, + the $100 (minimum) RAM and $$$HDDs/PSUs/Optical drives etc and................buy yourself a console. You'll save a buttload of money.

?? Show me a console that plays WoW, PC FPSs, etc. and your logic makes sense. AMD cpus in the last 6 weeks (new step) are OCing mad 2.6-2.8 a lock. HQ parts not req'd we aren't talking Intel here.

dude.. all AMD cpus easily oced to 2.5 Ghz, the 65nm arent that good, but the 90nm could easily climb to 2.6-2.8 with low-medium effort ( and 2.2-2.5 with no effort )

so.. what you say is like.. old news, like the republicans..
but still intel's part (core) do overclock equally and offer better performance. :|
March 31, 2007 9:39:16 AM

Quote:
the x3000 already supports DX10 what $120 card are you using to support DX 10?
plus i didnt have to pay $120 dollars on a video card and didnt have to spend $100 on a PSU

so again
how much did you pay for your system?
my system will last until intel makes a discrete graphics solution

btw what cards/system are you using that will bone mine to china and back lol


I already spec'd my system above. You integrated video is slow 64-bit mem bus shared w/ CPU and half of my dedicated 128-bit mem bus TI4200. Sorry to burst your bubble, not really:

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X3000

3D enhancements enable greater game compatibility with support for Hardware T&L, and improved realism with support for Microsoft DirectX* 9.0c Shader Model 3.0, OpenGL* 1.5, and floating point operations. Intel graphics technology also support the highest levels of the Microsoft Vista* Aero experience.

..

No DX10 hmmm my card runs Aero fine tooo
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2007 9:46:27 AM

Quote:
thats funny cause im playing games on an X3000 gfx part (which i am sure you will say sucks) but it plays games great.


:lol:  8O :oops: 
March 31, 2007 10:01:24 AM

Quote:
Simple fact video cards play games not CPUs so pick a great video card first then build the system around it.

So fi, a X2-3800+ OC'd to 3Ghz (similar to an E6600) and an 8800GTS320

-or-

a E6600, a $150 mobo, and a X1950Pro

.. see my point it's all about budget and purpose

if money is no object C2Q & 2x 8800GTX768s TADAAA

E6300 has higher FSB than E4300 negligable, and no VIS. woopeee

do me a favor get an E6600 or better or an X2-6000+ or worse


Ahh, your not going to get a x2 3800 up to stock E6600. Not without spending a bunch of extra money on cooling/mobo/highend RAM.
The X23800+8800 argument has never been and never will be valid. Why? Because if all you want is a fast gaming machine, you can skip the $100 x2 3800 and the $600 8800, + the $100 (minimum) RAM and $$$HDDs/PSUs/Optical drives etc and................buy yourself a console. You'll save a buttload of money.

?? Show me a console that plays WoW, PC FPSs, etc. and your logic makes sense. AMD cpus in the last 6 weeks (new step) are OCing mad 2.6-2.8 a lock. HQ parts not req'd we aren't talking Intel here.

dude.. all AMD cpus easily oced to 2.5 Ghz, the 65nm arent that good, but the 90nm could easily climb to 2.6-2.8 with low-medium effort ( and 2.2-2.5 with no effort )

so.. what you say is like.. old news, like the republicans..
but still intel's part (core) do overclock equally and offer better performance. :|

I was replying to the text in huge size .. everyone knows x2 and c2d oc like a mofo. X2 usually without ANYTHING fancy at all, the new 65nm step is now OCing like a mofo also. And yes an X2 at 3Ghz is in the ballpark of a E6600 especially in games.
March 31, 2007 3:50:06 PM

Quote:
As for Rule #1, ok, newegg.

As for Rule #3, I notice the tone and I think I know what you mean.

As for Rule #2, there is got to be something eh?
Like in the topic I linked, the guy said those were two "comparable" processors... I know, I know.. it is not like I can take them both and they will be exactly the same etc... but there has to be a hierarchy right? :?

Because in the old times I think it was a bit easier for me to figure out what Intel processor was AMD's competitor and so on... but now I see so much on both sides that is hard for me to know what can be compared at "some extent " to the other :?


Ya see, that's the problem. No matter what hierarchical chart is devised, there is always some nerd that sticks his nose in and states that this CPU outperforms that CPU in some particular function. That function may be running Commodore PET games in emulation, but it is a function nonetheless. I've argued for an absolute performance benchmark number but there really doesn't seem to be any. Dhry/Whetstones, Sandra, MFLOPs etc. never really tell you the whole story. THG's weekly CPU price charts have an abstract performance number that I really don't buy into as I have no idea how they come up with it and doesn't seem to make sense for some processors. So you're left with a very confusing situation!!!
March 31, 2007 7:04:00 PM

Quote:
... So you're left with a very confusing situation!!!

I guess now I understand Rule #3 :( 

Guys, please, Im sure there are a lot of places to discuss about overclocking and videocards... I believe what Im asking is just a hierarchy chart for CPUs... now, I understand some of the views exposed here, like a given CPU + Videocard A can outperform another CPU with Videocard B, even if the "another" CPU is better than the first one by far, or something like that.

But then again, I cant believe there is not at least a chart ordered by time when it tells you what CPUs were released at least to "try" to compete with other CPUs from different brand...
AFAIK, the hierarchy chart would start with those high-end Intels that are around 800-900 bucks (extreme something, 4-core?), with no counterpart on the AMD field so far.

Please, some enlightening here... Im sure it hasnt to be so difficult...

Thank you once again :) 
March 31, 2007 7:48:45 PM

2 things on THG may help you -

CPU charts -
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
you can compare performance on apps you may run

CPU Price / performance charts - (sorry - I couldn't find the actual charts - just this table listing... but they are here on THG somewhere...)
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31427/137/
Using this you can compare by performance index & see comparable prices - though these may not have been updated w/ recent price cuts...
March 31, 2007 7:54:09 PM

Quote:
Simple fact video cards play games not CPUs so pick a great video card first then build the system around it.

So fi, a X2-3800+ OC'd to 3Ghz (similar to an E6600) and an 8800GTS320

-or-

a E6600, a $150 mobo, and a X1950Pro

.. see my point it's all about budget and purpose

if money is no object C2Q & 2x 8800GTX768s TADAAA

E6300 has higher FSB than E4300 negligable, and no VIS. woopeee

do me a favor get an E6600 or better or an X2-6000+ or worse


Ahh, your not going to get a x2 3800 up to stock E6600. Not without spending a bunch of extra money on cooling/mobo/highend RAM.
The X23800+8800 argument has never been and never will be valid. Why? Because if all you want is a fast gaming machine, you can skip the $100 x2 3800 and the $600 8800, + the $100 (minimum) RAM and $$$HDDs/PSUs/Optical drives etc and................buy yourself a console. You'll save a buttload of money.

?? Show me a console that plays WoW, PC FPSs, etc. and your logic makes sense. AMD cpus in the last 6 weeks (new step) are OCing mad 2.6-2.8 a lock. HQ parts not req'd we aren't talking Intel here.

dude.. all AMD cpus easily oced to 2.5 Ghz, the 65nm arent that good, but the 90nm could easily climb to 2.6-2.8 with low-medium effort ( and 2.2-2.5 with no effort )

so.. what you say is like.. old news, like the republicans..
but still intel's part (core) do overclock equally and offer better performance. :|

I was replying to the text in huge size .. everyone knows x2 and c2d oc like a mofo. X2 usually without ANYTHING fancy at all, the new 65nm step is now OCing like a mofo also. And yes an X2 at 3Ghz is in the ballpark of a E6600 especially in games.That's too general of a statement. Yes, C2D's all overclock like a mofo...even the top-clocked X6800...frequently hitting 3.6GHz+(~670MHz O/C). Now using the assumption that K8 is topping out at 3.10GHz, 3600+ and 3800+ are giving nice overclock's(1200MHz and 1100MHz O/C's respectively), whereas the high-end parts aren't...6000+ (100MHz maybe 200MHz O/C with a good chip). If you take all the x2 chips, roll them up, and come out with an average overclock.... it's not true to say x2's overclock like a mofo. Some do... some don't. :?
March 31, 2007 7:57:55 PM

Quote:
the x3000 already supports DX10 what $120 card are you using to support DX 10?
plus i didnt have to pay $120 dollars on a video card and didnt have to spend $100 on a PSU

so again
how much did you pay for your system?
my system will last until intel makes a discrete graphics solution

btw what cards/system are you using that will bone mine to china and back lol
Uhhh, just because your card technically supports Direct X10, doesn't mean it's nearly capable of playing Direct X10 titles like Crysis. My REAL Direct X10 card could bone your card to China and back, but then again it would be an unfair comparison.
March 31, 2007 7:58:33 PM

Quote:
Hello.

After checking some of the *amusing* topics in this section... I believe I am about to turn to the dark side and buy Intel.

However... I need a comparison chart where I can see AMD vs Intel CPUs, like lets just say, the "direct" competitors for each other, so I can compare prices in amazon or the like (which is where Im ordering them).

But I found nothing in the main site, and I dont see anything in the stickies unless Im blind (in that case my apologies).

This is mostly in regard to this topic, were I see for example AMD Athlon X2 4600+ is comparable to the Intel Core 2 Duo E6300.

However its weird because on amazon for instance I dont see any E6300 but mostly E4xxx.

Anyway, if someone could help me out, I would appreciate it.

Thanks for your time :) 

PD: If I did not explain myself enough... this is sort of what I want [ clicky ] but for CPUs (see "Videocard Hierarchy Chart", thats the thing ;)  )

State budget and purpose for system. The AMD/Intel nerds will quote you good systems from NewEgg. Just wait till the thread is 3 pages long before you decide and make sure all components are compatible because some of the geeks are really young and think they know more than they do.
March 31, 2007 8:16:19 PM

K8L_Extreme, Barcelona_Extreme, Opterondo... anyone else see a pattern or am I just pulling my own leg?
March 31, 2007 8:24:29 PM

*Diplomatic Silence*
March 31, 2007 8:30:31 PM

Ummm, I meant stupid in the nice since of the word. Like " Dude, you are so stupid. " :wink:

**backs away slowly and leaves while they think about that**
March 31, 2007 8:52:32 PM

Quote:
2 things on THG may help you -

CPU charts -
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
you can compare performance on apps you may run

Yup the problem with that is that It seems a bit outdated (IIRC) and also its hard for me to figure out from that info what I want.

Quote:

CPU Price / performance charts - (sorry - I couldn't find the actual charts - just this table listing... but they are here on THG somewhere...)
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31427/137/
Using this you can compare by performance index & see comparable prices - though these may not have been updated w/ recent price cuts...

Ok thanks will check that out.

Quote:
State budget and purpose for system. The AMD/Intel nerds will quote you good systems from NewEgg. Just wait till the thread is 3 pages long before you decide and make sure all components are compatible because some of the geeks are really young and think they know more than they do.

Sorry but I think the point is not the "system" just a hierarchy chart as Ive sai d many times now...
For example in the old times you could compare a "normal" Pentium 4 with its AMD counterparts (Athlon XPs), a Celeron with a Duron (IIRC) and most of the times a simple check in the speeds would give you a roughly estimate on which is the competitor for what.

But now Im confused with so many Exxx and I have no idea what are their AMD counterparts.

Anyway, thanks to the few people that stayed on topic, but now I regret having posting it. I will google till I cant go on anymore I guess.
March 31, 2007 9:33:01 PM

ummm, try comparing by equal price. find out what processors are say in the $140-$160 range. Then buy the one that is best.

Problem solved.

FYI- if under $150 it will be AMD. if over $150 it will be Intel.
March 31, 2007 10:10:51 PM

Quote:
ummm, try comparing by equal price. find out what processors are say in the $140-$160 range. Then buy the one that is best.

Problem solved.

FYI- if under $150 it will be AMD. if over $150 it will be Intel.


First of all don't buy anything until for 3 weeks when the prices all drop. Then I think a better summation would be look at the price of a Core2Duo and if that is too much buy AMD.
April 2, 2007 9:25:40 AM

Quote:


Ya see, that's the problem. No matter what hierarchical chart is devised, there is always some nerd that sticks his nose in and states that this CPU outperforms that CPU in some particular function. That function may be running Commodore PET games in emulation, but it is a function nonetheless. I've argued for an absolute performance benchmark number but there really doesn't seem to be any. Dhry/Whetstones, Sandra, MFLOPs etc. never really tell you the whole story. THG's weekly CPU price charts have an abstract performance number that I really don't buy into as I have no idea how they come up with it and doesn't seem to make sense for some processors. So you're left with a very confusing situation!!!


I agree but there are benchmarks and methods to do this but noone uses them. For instance noone ever quotes the MIN FPS (which causes choppiness below 40FPS) for a game they quote the MAX FPS (which doesn't mean anything above 60). ie I don't care if that C2D can buffer a scene to 200 FPS I care if it can keep it above 40FPS in a worst case scenario with like 20 bots or something. Which the A64/X2 are proven superior especially against P4. CPUmark 2.1 is a great OPS benchmark that show with 3 tests which type of processing a cpu does best. ie buy a P4/C2D if you want to encode Divx all day - buy a X2/C2D if your more worried about gaming MIN FPS. Sandra doesn't have a good CPU test for some reason, it's outdated I mean.
April 2, 2007 9:35:42 AM

Quote:
... So you're left with a very confusing situation!!!

I guess now I understand Rule #3 :( 

Guys, please, Im sure there are a lot of places to discuss about overclocking and videocards... I believe what Im asking is just a hierarchy chart for CPUs... now, I understand some of the views exposed here, like a given CPU + Videocard A can outperform another CPU with Videocard B, even if the "another" CPU is better than the first one by far, or something like that.

But then again, I cant believe there is not at least a chart ordered by time when it tells you what CPUs were released at least to "try" to compete with other CPUs from different brand...
AFAIK, the hierarchy chart would start with those high-end Intels that are around 800-900 bucks (extreme something, 4-core?), with no counterpart on the AMD field so far.

Please, some enlightening here... Im sure it hasnt to be so difficult...

Thank you once again :) 

This is not done because cpus are/were released like every two months and its not really a war necessarily. The best way to compare is to just look at the performance then pick your price range. Or vise versa depending on your situation.

Right now i'd get a E6600 setup or better $309 or get an Brisbane X2 3800+ or better $120. Just remember video cards play games not cpus really; good picks 8800GTS320, X1950XT, X1950PRO. GL
April 2, 2007 9:38:52 AM

Quote:
That's too general of a statement. Yes, C2D's all overclock like a mofo...even the top-clocked X6800...frequently hitting 3.6GHz+(~670MHz O/C). Now using the assumption that K8 is topping out at 3.10GHz, 3600+ and 3800+ are giving nice overclock's(1200MHz and 1100MHz O/C's respectively), whereas the high-end parts aren't...6000+ (100MHz maybe 200MHz O/C with a good chip). If you take all the x2 chips, roll them up, and come out with an average overclock.... it's not true to say x2's overclock like a mofo. Some do... some don't. :?
The point of overclocking is not about buying the best. :roll:
April 2, 2007 9:40:43 AM

Quote:
K8L_Extreme, Barcelona_Extreme, Opterondo... anyone else see a pattern or am I just pulling my own leg?


The latter; I roll with a P4B-2Ghz dog ..
April 2, 2007 10:07:10 AM

Quote:
... So you're left with a very confusing situation!!!

I guess now I understand Rule #3 :( 

No, not necessarily. If less time and effort was spent on redirecting THG hits to the Editor's other sites on movies and cars, THG might be able to put it's "vaunted" labs to coming up with a modern, unique and fair absolute benchmark which would let us compare apples and oranges. But I guess that has to take a back seat to which movie poster Tarantino chooses. :roll: