AMD beats Intel

Nearly everyone says that an overclocked C2D is better than AMD X2. But is that true when you consider the cost of the better components that overclocking requires? Certainly, C2D OCs can reach far higher performance levels than AMD OCs. However a top AMD and cheap C2D overclocked will give similar performance. But at what price ratio?

I found the appropiate benchmark info at
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance

I used Test Setup components where possible, or reasonable alternatives. Here are the prices from Newegg on 7/19/07.
-------------------------------------------------
AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
Total $253.96
-------------------------------------------------
A similar AMD 6000+ system will cost $293.96, and clock at about WinRAR = 703 kb/s
-------------------------------------------------
E4300 / Noctua 1.2 9x375 750-4-4-4-12 WinRAR = 684 kb/s

C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared N82E16819115013 $121.00
ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX N82E16813131070 $144.99
Kingston HyperX 1GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 N82E16820134065 $69.49
Noctua NH-U12F http://www.jab-tech.com/product.php?productid=3571 $59.95
Rosewill RP550-2 ATX 2.01 550W PS N82E16817182017 $55.99
Total $451.42
------------------------------------------- ------
Excuse me. Virtually identical performance with AMD costing $294 and C2D costing $451?

And this doesn't include the intangibles
1. Overclocking is unpredictable. You could get a dud.
2. Overclocking voids the warranties.
3. Higher fanspeed is nosier.
4. The E4300 cost $190 at the egg on 3/26/07, and $115 on 5/27/07 after the price war started. AMD is in a big slump. If it folds, Intel will be a monopoly and the price would probably still be $190 or more.
5. Some may quibble about my component selection, but $294 vs $451 is a huge gap to un-quibble.

Apparently, the benefit of overclocking is often not worth the cost of the better components needed. So for budget and middling performance rigs, I think AMD is very viable, to say the least.
58 answers Last reply
More about beats intel
  1. yes if you are doing budget builds for WinRAR
  2. 1) Why pick more expensive memory for the E4300 when the 5000+ is more sensitive to memory speed?
    2) Why does the E4300 have one of the most expensive HSF available and a more expensive PSU when it at 3.37GHz uses less power than the 5000+ Windsor at stock?
    3) Why pick a bottom of the barrel ECS motherboard and rather high-end Asus motherboard for the E4300? Even a low-end $50 S775 motherboard would have enough overclocking headroom to get the E4300 to 2.7GHz or so, making it faster than the 6000+.
    4) A E4300 at 3.37GHz will be overall, faster than any dual-core AMD processor in existence.
    5) Why do a comparison now, when next week, the E4400 should be at the E4300's price position and the E6750 should be available at near the 6000+'s price while being considerably faster and using 60% less power.
  3. dspear said:
    I found the appropiate benchmark info at
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
    I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.


    first of all, the e4300 is at 200x9 = 1800mhz thats not overclocked.
    and the X2 5000 is running at 2600mhz.


    dspear said:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/c pu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance


    wrong again.
    that 18% in crease would be added to the score of the stock X2 5000. and the e4300 cleary out performs both processors when the speed in mhz is matched between the 2 cpus.

    let me use the doom 3 benchmark graph to elaborate.

    the graph you have provided shows a e4300 @ 1.8ghz (200x9 = 1800mhz) getting a score of 150.8.
    and the X2 5000 at 2.6ghz (200x13) getting a score of 149.3.

    so the "un overclocked" e4300 @ 1.8ghz is on par with the X2 5000 @ 2.6ghz, an 800mhz difference in core speed.

    but once overclocked the e4300 shows drastic improvements, not to be compared with an X2 5000 overclocked as it is not present on this graph.

    an 18% increase for using an X2 6000 would theoretically equal 176.1 points on this graph.
    and this graph shows that the e4300 @ 2997 scores 233.1 points.
  4. from a socket 939 user Intel has a quad chip AMD does not. End of story.
  5. What?Fanboy.
  6. it is true that you can build a dual core system from AMD on an awesome budget. price cuts are wonderful. but to say that the perfomance is the same between these two is in fact in correct when OC'ing is added to the equation. which for most C2D owners, it is.
  7. AMD Beats Intel....


    in Hector Ruiz's Wet Dream.... o_0
  8. Short answer...

    Uh... no.
  9. AMD and Intel almost seem to be in the same position they were in during the Athlon days when it comes to price and performance. I agree you can put together an AMD based machine that performs just as well if not the same as an equivalent Intel based machine for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. It was that same price/performance mix that made AMD the upgrader/enthusiasts favorite over the more costly Intel rigs.

    I have to laugh when I read suggestions like, "don't buy an AMD, spend the same amount of money and get a low-end Intel and overclock it". :lol: Yeah...ok... :sarcastic:
  10. Ford Beats Chevy
    Bisquick Beats Krusteaz
    Nalley Beats Hormel
    DeWalt Beats Makita
    Pringles Beats Lays
    Saturn Beats Mars
    Cirrus Minor Beats Ursa Minor
    give it a rest.
  11. *clap, clap*

    Thanks for wasting 2 mins of my life.
  12. HYST3R said:
    it is true that you can build a dual core system from AMD on an awesome budget. price cuts are wonderful. but to say that the perfomance is the same between these two is in fact in correct when OC'ing is added to the equation. which for most C2D owners, it is.


    What are you talking about? The VAST VAST MAJORITY of C2D owners do not overclock. OC'ers on the whole probably represent less than a ten thousandth or maybe even a hundred thousandth of all computer users. And in such cases, $175 X2 6000+'s do represent real value, but C2Ds are dropping in price as are peripherals required to use them. But it's stupid to make such blanket statements like most C2D owners overclock.
  13. bliq said:
    What are you talking about? The VAST VAST MAJORITY of C2D owners do not overclock. OC'ers on the whole probably represent less than a ten thousandth or maybe even a hundred thousandth of all computer users. And in such cases, $175 X2 6000+'s do represent real value, but C2Ds are dropping in price as are peripherals required to use them. But it's stupid to make such blanket statements like most C2D owners overclock.



    i was referring to an enthusiast crowd, such as many who frequent these forums. but yes when it comes to general public you are right. i stand corrected.
  14. LOL, That post is sooooo sad :>>>

    He put so much work into it but clearly without a clue.
  15. i am an amd fanboi as much as the next but CAN WE STOP WITH THESE STUPID POSTS?

    good grief you abysmal TROLLING DELETED. enough with the rehash of the same **** over and over. AMD LOST, DEAL WITH IT! what good does it do but inflate your pitiful epenis to waste time spouting this nonsense? this stuff is so old msnbc is covering it now, why the hell do you waste time with this?
  16. I agree with jrnyfan. I got a K6, Thunderbird, X2 +4600 and probably will buy a 8-core Barcelona in September. But AMD is a least 6-12 months behind at the moment.
  17. 8-core
    lol
  18. Despair,

    Hyst3r is correct....

    Also, Chunky, could you please show me where I can buy an equivalent performance AMD for 1/2 to 1/3 less than an Intel?

    This should be interesting!!

    One thing the OP failed to understand is that many are also getting outstanding OCs on the STOCK HSF provided with the Intel procs. In essence the only reason to go to other than stock, is if you are thinking of doing Extreme OCing on Air.
  19. bigwater said:
    8-core
    lol


    What BigWater you don't want an 8-core Farcelona (I mean Barcelona?)?

    :lol:
  20. Give it up already.
  21. this thread should be locked.
  22. i like amd cause it keeps my room warm during the winter
  23. Quote:
    1) Why pick more expensive memory for the E4300 when the 5000+ is more sensitive to memory speed?
    2) Why does the E4300 have one of the most expensive HSF available and a more expensive PSU when it at 3.37GHz uses less power than the 5000+ Windsor at stock?
    3) Why pick a bottom of the barrel ECS motherboard and rather high-end Asus motherboard for the E4300? Even a low-end $50 S775 motherboard would have enough overclocking headroom to get the E4300 to 2.7GHz or so, making it faster than the 6000+.
    4) A E4300 at 3.37GHz will be overall, faster than any dual-core AMD processor in existence.
    5) Why do a comparison now, when next week, the E4400 should be at the E4300's price position and the E6750 should be available at near the 6000+'s price while being considerably faster and using 60% less power.

    1) The OCed 4300 with a BM of 684 required RAM reaching "750-4-4-4-12" where the 5000 specified any "DDR2-800". Doesn't overclocking often require better mem as well as other components to reach the speed?
    2) The HSF was as specified to reach the overclocked freq. To quote a Newegg reviewer of the Rosewell PSU; "I have a heavily overclocked processor, so it draws a lot of power"
    3) This is the whole point. To my knowledge, decent overclocking requires a good/expensive mobo. Which C2D mobo for under say $80 will OC an E4300 from 1.8 to 3.38 according to Newegg reviewers or another source?
    4) Not according to the cited BMs. E4300@3.38=684 kb/s. X2 5000@2.6=596 kb/s. X2 6000@3.0=703kb/s is certainly a reasonable estimate.
    5) You miss the point. The reason the prices are so low is because of the competition. Without that, prices would be far higher.
    Quote:
    first of all, the e4300 is at 200x9 = 1800mhz thats not overclocked.

    There are six benchmarks for the E4300 running at various frequencies in the cited WinRAR diagram. The one I am using is a BM of 684 which is the E4300 running at 9x375=3.375GHz.
  24. Quote:
    that 18% in crease would be added to the score of the stock X2 5000. and the e4300 cleary out performs both processors when the speed in mhz is matched between the 2 cpus

    Don't understand your comment. The cited diagram to estimate 6000 speed gives a 6000 BM of 2:53 =173sec. The 5000 BM is 3:24 = 204 sec. 204/173 = 18% difference.
    Quote:
    it is true that you can build a dual core system from AMD on an awesome budget. price cuts are wonderful. but to say that the perfomance is the same between these two is in fact in correct when OC'ing is added to the equation. which for most C2D owners, it is

    This benchmarks for the E4300@3.38 (overclocked) and X2 6000@3.0 are close indicating close WinRAR performance. And it shouldn't be all that different for other BMs (like Quake). Each reader can check how far off this is for their favorite BM and see whether the cost of the better mobo, etc, makes the OCing worth it. My point is that these additional costs are very significent and must be factored in before deceiding on AMD or Intel.
    Quote:
    One thing the OP failed to understand is that many are also getting outstanding OCs on the STOCK HSF provided with the Intel procs. In essence the only reason to go to other than stock, is if you are thinking of doing Extreme OCing on Air

    You are very right. I know that most overclockers don't go extream. But you still need a decent mobo. Add a middling PSU to the stock HSF and you could get E4300@3.1GHz barebones for about $320. And this might be roughly equivalent performance to the above X2 5000 for $254
  25. I have a few hints for you:

    1. Don't use such an inflammatory and generalized thread title. Although you make your case for the low end in your thread, may people don't necessarily pay attention to the details.

    2. Your component selection is uneven - something the THG writers have been flamed for in their recent articles. Your choices in PSUs make absolutely no sense to me. I also don't understand why you didn't use the same components where possible (PSU, memory). You could get by with a cheaper cooler and motherboard, and bring the cost of the Intel system to around $380. It is still true that Intel motherboards are more expensive than their AMD counterparts.

    3. You're basing this conclusion on one, count, one benchmark. While I believe that WinRAR actually favors C2D (which would mean that I can't accuse you of cherry-picking), basing a general conclusion such as the one you made on one benchmark is a little difficult for people to accept. It's a assumption that many can't follow, and in many cases is erroneous as well. Remember that different uArchs are suited for different tasks - Core dominates SSE, while Hammer is very well suited for intensive FP calculations.

    Your conclusion - that AMD owns the low end - is not lost on us; in fact, we have know this for upwards of several months. However, as the price war continues, the line at which AMD and Intel crossover shifts downward, which is bad for AMD. One more thing - most Newegg reviewers are idiots. If you need proof, find the reviews for the Intel 965EE.

    I think this should be locked. I don't see anything productive going on here; just more of the flaming this place has become (in)famous for.
  26. dspear said:
    Nearly everyone says that an overclocked C2D is better than AMD X2. But is that true when you consider the cost of the better components that overclocking requires? Certainly, C2D OCs can reach far higher performance levels than AMD OCs. However a top AMD and cheap C2D overclocked will give similar performance. But at what price ratio?

    I found the appropiate benchmark info at
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
    I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance

    I used Test Setup components where possible, or reasonable alternatives. Here are the prices from Newegg on 7/19/07.
    -------------------------------------------------
    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96
    -------------------------------------------------
    A similar AMD 6000+ system will cost $293.96, and clock at about WinRAR = 703 kb/s
    -------------------------------------------------
    E4300 / Noctua 1.2 9x375 750-4-4-4-12 WinRAR = 684 kb/s

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared N82E16819115013 $121.00
    ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX N82E16813131070 $144.99
    Kingston HyperX 1GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 N82E16820134065 $69.49
    Noctua NH-U12F http://www.jab-tech.com/product.php?productid=3571 $59.95
    Rosewill RP550-2 ATX 2.01 550W PS N82E16817182017 $55.99
    Total $451.42
    ------------------------------------------- ------
    Excuse me. Virtually identical performance with AMD costing $294 and C2D costing $451?

    And this doesn't include the intangibles
    1. Overclocking is unpredictable. You could get a dud.
    2. Overclocking voids the warranties.
    3. Higher fanspeed is nosier.
    4. The E4300 cost $190 at the egg on 3/26/07, and $115 on 5/27/07 after the price war started. AMD is in a big slump. If it folds, Intel will be a monopoly and the price would probably still be $190 or more.
    5. Some may quibble about my component selection, but $294 vs $451 is a huge gap to un-quibble.

    Apparently, the benefit of overclocking is often not worth the cost of the better components needed. So for budget and middling performance rigs, I think AMD is very viable, to say the least.


    There are so many things wrong with this not to mention you're basing your conclusion on one benchmark.

    Also, after July 22, Intel is slashing prices on all their CPUs.

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038

    I don't understand this, just a year ago when the slow X2 3800+ was $300+ and X2 4400+ was $450+, no one complained. Now these pathetic AMD fanboys are bickering about how Intel setups are too expensive. Whatever makes you sleep better.
  27. Upon reviewing the specs of the Ford GT, I came to the conclusion that due to its high horsepower and torque, it's clearly the best choice in vehicle whether you're on the track, ripping stumps out of the ground, hauling sheet-rock, or pulling that huge 3rd wheel camper to lake Michigan for the weekend.

    1) WAY faster both around the track and in a straight line than a pickup truck
    2) Has as much torque as a diesel engine
    3) Has 550bhp
    4) Is AWD
    5) Comes with racing stripes!

    So, liek really, the Ford GT beats out most vehicles because it's great around the track and can go 212mph. :)

    /sarcasm off

    Just because the AMD is fast on Winrar doesn't mean it's better lol. For overall performance, Intel clearly wins :-/ You might want to consider checking out other benchmarks while you're at it. Honestly, I unzip a .rar file once a week, maybe less. I game perhaps 2 hours a day. What the hell do you think I'm going to look at?
  28. I see the Q6600 on overclockers now for €300...let's seem AMD match that :)

    Anyway to stir up the fanboys :bounce:
  29. clairvoyant129 said:
    There are so many things wrong with this not to mention you're basing your conclusion on one benchmark.

    Also, after July 22, Intel is slashing prices on all their CPUs.

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038

    I don't understand this, just a year ago when the slow X2 3800+ was $300+ and X2 4400+ was $450+, no one complained. Now these pathetic AMD fanboys are bickering about how Intel setups are too expensive. Whatever makes you sleep better.



    I remember paying $300 for my X2 3800 too! My friend has it right now, and I paid $300 for my E6600 after that not a year later for a helluva lot more performance. I have no regrets :)
  30. wth..why the need for the expensive mobo,ram,psu AND a cpu cooler?...
  31. I don't think the thread should be locked! If you think its silly don't answer just leave and look at something else! Although he is showing his bias there is some points worth considering. I'm not really in to over clocking but have read a few of there posts and most do say if your going to over clock get a good Motherboard and memory.
    Having said that, the argument he is running should include Hi end C2D's as well. EG if you buy a E6600 and basic ram and motherboard you may spend less money than E4300 with a good overclocking Mobo and memory. :sol:

    I like difference type's of post, with different points of views, we don't have to agree with the poster but I don't think we should just ridicule them either. Just state your point of view. :sol:
    Makes a much better Forum. :hello:
  32. DUDE!! You need to realise (and that comes from an AMD fanboy), that winRAR is the ONLY application that athlon x2 is faster than C2D due to the built in memory controller and generally faster memory. C2D is the king of the hill atm and all we can do is wait for Barcelona. But even if Barcelona isn't faster than top C2D, still we get the benefit of the price cuts!! To all the Intel fanboys out there, if it wasn't for AMD and us Amd fanboys, you would all have pentium D's and you would look the top C2D with binoculars cause they would cost 5000 dollars. Cheers!
  33. dspear said:
    Nearly everyone says that an overclocked C2D is better than AMD X2. But is that true when you consider the cost of the better components that overclocking requires? Certainly, C2D OCs can reach far higher performance levels than AMD OCs. However a top AMD and cheap C2D overclocked will give similar performance. But at what price ratio?

    I found the appropiate benchmark info at
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
    I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance

    I used Test Setup components where possible, or reasonable alternatives. Here are the prices from Newegg on 7/19/07.
    -------------------------------------------------
    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96
    -------------------------------------------------
    A similar AMD 6000+ system will cost $293.96, and clock at about WinRAR = 703 kb/s
    -------------------------------------------------
    E4300 / Noctua 1.2 9x375 750-4-4-4-12 WinRAR = 684 kb/s

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared N82E16819115013 $121.00
    ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX N82E16813131070 $144.99
    Kingston HyperX 1GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 N82E16820134065 $69.49
    Noctua NH-U12F http://www.jab-tech.com/product.php?productid=3571 $59.95
    Rosewill RP550-2 ATX 2.01 550W PS N82E16817182017 $55.99
    Total $451.42
    ------------------------------------------- ------
    Excuse me. Virtually identical performance with AMD costing $294 and C2D costing $451?

    And this doesn't include the intangibles
    1. Overclocking is unpredictable. You could get a dud.
    2. Overclocking voids the warranties.
    3. Higher fanspeed is nosier.
    4. The E4300 cost $190 at the egg on 3/26/07, and $115 on 5/27/07 after the price war started. AMD is in a big slump. If it folds, Intel will be a monopoly and the price would probably still be $190 or more.
    5. Some may quibble about my component selection, but $294 vs $451 is a huge gap to un-quibble.

    Apparently, the benefit of overclocking is often not worth the cost of the better components needed. So for budget and middling performance rigs, I think AMD is very viable, to say the least.


    I've got a 7+ year old netra t1 105, 440 mhz ultrasparcIIi processor, a 130 W pwr supply and 512 MB ram. It will gzip a 1GB file in about 2.5 seconds. And it was free.

    Scott McNealy needs a new boat... Please buy Sun.
  34. dspear said:
    Nearly everyone says that an overclocked C2D is better than AMD X2. But is that true when you consider the cost of the better components that overclocking requires? Certainly, C2D OCs can reach far higher performance levels than AMD OCs. However a top AMD and cheap C2D overclocked will give similar performance. But at what price ratio?

    I found the appropiate benchmark info at
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
    I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance

    I used Test Setup components where possible, or reasonable alternatives. Here are the prices from Newegg on 7/19/07.
    -------------------------------------------------
    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96
    -------------------------------------------------
    A similar AMD 6000+ system will cost $293.96, and clock at about WinRAR = 703 kb/s
    -------------------------------------------------
    E4300 / Noctua 1.2 9x375 750-4-4-4-12 WinRAR = 684 kb/s

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared N82E16819115013 $121.00
    ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX N82E16813131070 $144.99
    Kingston HyperX 1GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 N82E16820134065 $69.49
    Noctua NH-U12F http://www.jab-tech.com/product.php?productid=3571 $59.95
    Rosewill RP550-2 ATX 2.01 550W PS N82E16817182017 $55.99
    Total $451.42
    ------------------------------------------- ------
    Excuse me. Virtually identical performance with AMD costing $294 and C2D costing $451?

    And this doesn't include the intangibles
    1. Overclocking is unpredictable. You could get a dud.
    2. Overclocking voids the warranties.
    3. Higher fanspeed is nosier.
    4. The E4300 cost $190 at the egg on 3/26/07, and $115 on 5/27/07 after the price war started. AMD is in a big slump. If it folds, Intel will be a monopoly and the price would probably still be $190 or more.
    5. Some may quibble about my component selection, but $294 vs $451 is a huge gap to un-quibble.

    Apparently, the benefit of overclocking is often not worth the cost of the better components needed. So for budget and middling performance rigs, I think AMD is very viable, to say the least.


  35. firetatoo said:
    Ford Beats Chevy
    Bisquick Beats Krusteaz
    Nalley Beats Hormel
    DeWalt Beats Makita
    Pringles Beats Lays
    Saturn Beats Mars
    Cirrus Minor Beats Ursa Minor
    give it a rest.


    Dude, you missed the almighty important one to the bottom end since we're talking bottom end here:

    Preparation H Beats Tucks
  36. dspear said:
    Nearly everyone says that an overclocked C2D is better than AMD X2. But is that true when you consider the cost of the better components that overclocking requires? Certainly, C2D OCs can reach far higher performance levels than AMD OCs. However a top AMD and cheap C2D overclocked will give similar performance. But at what price ratio?

    I found the appropiate benchmark info at
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
    I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance

    I used Test Setup components where possible, or reasonable alternatives. Here are the prices from Newegg on 7/19/07.
    -------------------------------------------------
    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96
    -------------------------------------------------
    A similar AMD 6000+ system will cost $293.96, and clock at about WinRAR = 703 kb/s
    -------------------------------------------------
    E4300 / Noctua 1.2 9x375 750-4-4-4-12 WinRAR = 684 kb/s

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared N82E16819115013 $121.00
    ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX N82E16813131070 $144.99
    Kingston HyperX 1GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 N82E16820134065 $69.49
    Noctua NH-U12F http://www.jab-tech.com/product.php?productid=3571 $59.95
    Rosewill RP550-2 ATX 2.01 550W PS N82E16817182017 $55.99
    Total $451.42
    ------------------------------------------- ------
    Excuse me. Virtually identical performance with AMD costing $294 and C2D costing $451?

    And this doesn't include the intangibles
    1. Overclocking is unpredictable. You could get a dud.
    2. Overclocking voids the warranties.
    3. Higher fanspeed is nosier.
    4. The E4300 cost $190 at the egg on 3/26/07, and $115 on 5/27/07 after the price war started. AMD is in a big slump. If it folds, Intel will be a monopoly and the price would probably still be $190 or more.
    5. Some may quibble about my component selection, but $294 vs $451 is a huge gap to un-quibble.

    Apparently, the benefit of overclocking is often not worth the cost of the better components needed. So for budget and middling performance rigs, I think AMD is very viable, to say the least.


    You fault lies in picking a way to balanced of a hardware between the two builds m8... that makes this article look almost fair!

    Now.. something like this you can really shove up Intel's butt:

    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96

    VS

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared - $121.00 WinRAR = 684 kb/s
    ABIT IN9 32X-MAX LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - OEM - $302.58
    Team Xtreem 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1300 (PC2 10400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TXDD2048M1300HC6DC - Retail - $399.99
    asetek 03-L-7002 Liquid Cooling System - Retail - $309.99
    PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Power Supply 100 - 240 V UL, cUL, CE, TUV, RoHS - Retail $529.99

    Total
    $1663.55

    Now with a 6.5 times more expensive E4300 OC setup with "Virtually identical performance" to X2 5k+ does it make sence to buy intel's CPUs??? I ASK YOU: DOES IT ??????????????????

    Looking at such undeniable and solid facts, I just have to conclude:

    AMD clearly pwns intel this days... AMD FOREVER I SAY
  37. If you are cherry-picking, then yes.

    You can also do the opposite and compare with Excel, where like any Intel ever made is faster than AMD CPUs.

    So unless you have a considerably large benchmark suite you cannot compare processors.
  38. xela said:
    You fault lies in picking a way to balanced of a hardware between the two builds m8... that makes this article look almost fair!

    Now.. something like this you can really shove up Intel's butt:

    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96

    VS

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared - $121.00 WinRAR = 684 kb/s
    ABIT IN9 32X-MAX LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard - OEM - $302.58
    Team Xtreem 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1300 (PC2 10400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TXDD2048M1300HC6DC - Retail - $399.99
    asetek 03-L-7002 Liquid Cooling System - Retail - $309.99
    PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 1KW-SR EPS12V 1000W Continuous @ 50°C Power Supply 100 - 240 V UL, cUL, CE, TUV, RoHS - Retail $529.99

    Total
    $1663.55

    Now with a 6.5 times more expensive E4300 OC setup with "Virtually identical performance" to X2 5k+ does it make sence to buy intel's CPUs??? I ASK YOU: DOES IT ??????????????????

    Looking at such undeniable and solid facts, I just have to conclude:

    AMD clearly pwns intel this days... AMD FOREVER I SAY


    whats funny about this is that my new q6600 setup didnt even cost near $1600.
  39. Sure lets just add 8800 Ultra with the liquid cooling and 1000W PSU to put a difference in prices. Let me just add a $500 case and a $1000 Blu-ray burner to make it "virtually identical" to what again?
  40. luminaris said:
    Dude, you missed the almighty important one to the bottom end since we're talking bottom end here:

    Preparation H Beats Tucks

    no i didnt.
    out of experience i find that:
    Tucks = better for instant releif of burning , itching flare up.
    Prep-H = better for long term releif.
  41. Centrum beats Flintstones vitamins.
  42. sparky79 said:
    whats funny about this is that my new q6600 setup didnt even cost near $1600.


    Yeah, I have been putting a new build for way to long. Need more power for gaming these days then my P4C3.0 + Rad X850XT can offer. Q6600 + 8800GTX with a good mobo + RAM + HD are only 1360 $... In all fairness, today it looks like AMD has a better chance of inventing a "brain in a can" 1 trillion terraflop CPU then beating that :whistle:
  43. Quote:
    Also, Chunky, could you please show me where I can buy an equivalent performance AMD for 1/2 to 1/3 less than an Intel?
    Ok, to keep things equal, let's use the stock GHz rating as the basis for comparison. All other components being equal (case, memory, psu, gpu, etc), and comparing an AMD X2 4600 Windsor @ 2.4GHz to an Intel E6600 Conroe @2.4GHz and using Tom's CPU charts as well as today's (7/20/07) prices quoted on newegg, the 4600 performs just as well compared to the E6600. Given the 4600 @ $108 compared to the E6600 @ $223, I really don't think there's much arguement here.

    To stem the bias on choice of mobo, lets choose two mainstream and popular selling AMD and Intel mobos, the Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Skt AM2 and the Asus P5W Deluxe Skt 775. The M2N33-SLI Deluxe costs $169 and the P5W Deluxe costs $189.

    AMD X2 4600+ @ $108 plus the M2N32-SLI Deluxe @ $169 = $277
    Intel E6600 @ $223 plus the P5W Deluxe @ $189 = $412
    277/412 = .672 = 1/3 the cost for an similiarly performing AMD based system.

    Now, before you go shoot from the hip, just remember I did not state that AMD is better or would outperform Intel, I stated...
    Quote:
    you can put together an AMD based machine that performs just as well if not the same as an equivalent Intel based machine for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost
    I believe that the above choices are a good example.

    Now if you believe that waiting an additional 51 seconds to multi-task Word PDF Maker and AVG Anti-virus is too long, or if you believe that waiting an additional 9 seconds to encode a 41MB file in Pinnacle Studio 9 Plus is too long, or if you believe that 118fps for the 4600 in FEAR compared to the E6600 with 128fps in FEAR is not enough; well then, I'm not exactly sure what to tell you. Personally, I believe that's pretty effin' good considering the 4600 has only 2x512 L2 Cache compared to the E6600's 4M shared L2 cache, the 4600 only has a 200MHz front side bus compared to the E6600's 266MHz front side bus, and especially considering the 4600 is last-gen 90nm silcon compared to the next-gen 65nm of the E6600.

    So all things considered, if I were to build a machine today, I'd spend 1/3 less on a 4600 and mobo and drink a beer while waiting the 51 seconds.
  44. dspear said:
    Nearly everyone says that an overclocked C2D is better than AMD X2. But is that true when you consider the cost of the better components that overclocking requires? Certainly, C2D OCs can reach far higher performance levels than AMD OCs. However a top AMD and cheap C2D overclocked will give similar performance. But at what price ratio?

    I found the appropiate benchmark info at
    http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2duo_e4300/11.html
    I arbitrarily chose the WinRAR scores of the X2 5000+ and overclocked C2D E4300 as those benchmarks weren't too far apart.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_2007/page28.html gives an 18% difference between the stock 5000 and 6000 on WinRAR. So by combining the data, the 6000@3.00 and E4300@3.37 have virtually the same WinRAR performance

    I used Test Setup components where possible, or reasonable alternatives. Here are the prices from Newegg on 7/19/07.
    -------------------------------------------------
    AMD X2 5000+ 333x9 2T DDR2-876 WinRAR = 596 kb/s

    Athlon X2 5000+ Windsor 2.6GHz 2 x 512KB N82E16819103030 $129.99
    ECS GeForce6100SM-M (1.0) AM2 GeForce 6100S N82E16813135039 $49.99
    OCZ Gold 1GB DDR2-800 N82E16820227123 $49.99
    BroadwayOKIA-BLACK-550 550W PS N82E16817162018 $23.99
    Total $253.96
    -------------------------------------------------
    A similar AMD 6000+ system will cost $293.96, and clock at about WinRAR = 703 kb/s
    -------------------------------------------------
    E4300 / Noctua 1.2 9x375 750-4-4-4-12 WinRAR = 684 kb/s

    C2D E4300 Allendale 1.8GHz 2M shared N82E16819115013 $121.00
    ASUS P5B-E LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX N82E16813131070 $144.99
    Kingston HyperX 1GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 N82E16820134065 $69.49
    Noctua NH-U12F http://www.jab-tech.com/product.php?productid=3571 $59.95
    Rosewill RP550-2 ATX 2.01 550W PS N82E16817182017 $55.99
    Total $451.42
    ------------------------------------------- ------
    Excuse me. Virtually identical performance with AMD costing $294 and C2D costing $451?

    And this doesn't include the intangibles
    1. Overclocking is unpredictable. You could get a dud.
    2. Overclocking voids the warranties.
    3. Higher fanspeed is nosier.
    4. The E4300 cost $190 at the egg on 3/26/07, and $115 on 5/27/07 after the price war started. AMD is in a big slump. If it folds, Intel will be a monopoly and the price would probably still be $190 or more.
    5. Some may quibble about my component selection, but $294 vs $451 is a huge gap to un-quibble.

    Apparently, the benefit of overclocking is often not worth the cost of the better components needed. So for budget and middling performance rigs, I think AMD is very viable, to say the least.


    ** In My Opinion**If you honestly think this is a way of doing a side by side comparison then you should consider taking your computer outside and burning it as you have no clue as to what you're on about. Whilst in the backyard consider leaving the electronic age behind you and take up gardening. With that said i'll leave it at that. I have said my piece.
  45. you know what chunky, "AMD is good enough" is not a viable excuse anymore, thats been played out hard on these forums for a year now, and if being good enough was enough then why would any of us need to upgrade?? Even the Pentium D put out playable framerates in games, but everyone bashed that. Its AMDs turn to get bashed until they put something better out.
  46. not realy fair compairing the 4600+ with the e6600 anyway.
    the e6600 is more matched in performance to the 5600+ or the 6000+.
  47. haha wow... the OP picked out bottom of the barrel AMD parts, and then some of the best mainstream intel parts. clearly he was extremely confused when he wrote that.
  48. chunkymonster said:
    Ok, to keep things equal, let's use the stock GHz rating as the basis for comparison. All other components being equal (case, memory, psu, gpu, etc), and comparing an AMD X2 4600 Windsor @ 2.4GHz to an Intel E6600 Conroe @2.4GHz and using Tom's CPU charts as well as today's (7/20/07) prices quoted on newegg, the 4600 performs just as well compared to the E6600. Given the 4600 @ $108 compared to the E6600 @ $223, I really don't think there's much arguement here.

    To stem the bias on choice of mobo, lets choose two mainstream and popular selling AMD and Intel mobos, the Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Skt AM2 and the Asus P5W Deluxe Skt 775. The M2N33-SLI Deluxe costs $169 and the P5W Deluxe costs $189.

    AMD X2 4600+ @ $108 plus the M2N32-SLI Deluxe @ $169 = $277
    Intel E6600 @ $223 plus the P5W Deluxe @ $189 = $412
    277/412 = .672 = 1/3 the cost for an similiarly performing AMD based system.


    These numbers don't prove your point. The original assertion was that an AMD based *machine* could be built for 1/3 to 1/2 less. The numbers above only include the CPU and MOBO. Add in the cost of the case, cpu, drives and such, and consider the fact that the AMD system would need better (and presumably costlier) RAM, the AMD system may indeed be cheaper, but likely not by the margins originally claimed, I suspect.

    As far as the chips you've chosen to compare I'll not debate, but I wonder how the Intel price cut might affect the totals (I haven't checked up on the new prices).
  49. clairvoyant129 said:
    There are so many things wrong with this not to mention you're basing your conclusion on one benchmark.

    Also, after July 22, Intel is slashing prices on all their CPUs.

    http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038

    I don't understand this, just a year ago when the slow X2 3800+ was $300+ and X2 4400+ was $450+, no one complained. Now these pathetic AMD fanboys are bickering about how Intel setups are too expensive. Whatever makes you sleep better.


    People *did* complain a lot back then- actually much more than now- but not that much about price. The X2s were very expensive when they first came out, but most of the whining came from the fact that they were on Socket 939 and used DDR, which everybody and their dog knew were going to be phased out in less than a year. The alternative was Intel's blast-furnace Pentium D 800s, which were more reasonably-priced (the 820 was ~$250 at launch and the 805 was under $200) but much slower than the X2s were. And everybody also knew that the Core 2s were coming out and that the current motherboards weren't compatible. So the griping was due to obsolescence more than anything, except possibly about overheating Pentium Ds.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance AMD Product