these are all the tests, reviews, articles are on toms home page. if ya look throughly, you'll fine some amd included tests. even the 500 dollar build was just intel cpu, then they added the amd 500 build recently.
th has been intel friendly for about 6 to 8 months now.
i have 2 rigs 1 gaming w/amd cpu, and a work rig w/p4.
so you can see my reasoning here, i would like a like more balance to the test beds.
intel's processors are excellent right now but if you like closely you can get a better performing cpu for the price form amd. example: all prices come from the following link, and i will only display price vers. performance, you can run the different tests if u wish.
price not to exceed 100.$=
intel= 2
amd=17
lets compare the top cpu from both that are under 100$.(couldnt fine the p4d925 so i upgraded to the p4d930)
again the top cpu from both are tested.(again i couldnt fine the cpu on the comparison chart so i when up to the c2de6300, which is 175.$ and i when down to the cd2e4300 because these are the only cpus closely available).
there it is. feel free to compare the different chart tests.
1 more test for ya, we all know that intel can be overclocked, but take into account that most often you have to buy a more expensive motherboard and cooling setup which adds more the the overall price of the rig. so ive tested these 2 cpus that are almost identical in price.
1st from intel @ 179.bucks the c2d e6550
2nd from amd @ 174. bucks the athlon 64 x2 6000+ = ran these tests
now are we now buying our cpus based solely on overclockability? the most expensive? is this why toms h is pushing the intel cpus like a good used car sales person would?
thank you, and plz dont flame, just intelligent, mature responses.
TH favors Intel, just as I would, these days. Why? because they currently make better processors. Look in my sig. I built that 2 years ago, and it was a monster. The previous machine was a XP 2800+ system; before that, a XP 1800+. I would love to own an Intel machine right now.
TH is a hardware enthusiast site. Thus, many reviews will stress overclockability. There have been some reviews that found AMD to be the better choice if you don't plan to overclock and Intel to be better if you do plan to. That's not bias. That's fact. Intel chips have an air-cooling ceiling of around 4GHz these days. AMD chips barely pass 3.2GHz. Intel chips do more work per clock than AMDs, and they have a higher ceiling. If Intel wanted to, it could release a 3.6GHz Core 2 Duo with a little bit of selective binning. They'd be doing close to what AMD now does for its 6400+: hand-picking the chips.
Back before Core 2 Duo, it was flipped. TH focused on AMD systems because it was simply a joke to call your machine a high end gaming box and equip it with a Pentium 4 (or D). Sure, you could buy a 3.8GHz Pentium D and it would do alright... or you could buy a 2.8GHz AMD that put out less heat and ran faster. So the benchmarks focused on AMD. Now they focus on Intel because a serious gaming rig should have a Core 2 at this point in time.
If AMD manages to pull a coup with the Phenom and its stupid, obscure naming system, and the thing actually does outperform the Core 2, then I bet you TH will start including a lot more AMD info.
I am not a Intel Fanboi, nor am I an AMD Fanboi. I loved AMD when the K8 was king. Now i wistfully desire a Core 2 Quad. Would that I had the budget for that...
yes! exactly what im looking for. unanswered questions. i feel the same way. this is why i posted.
its kinda like the nfl, everyones suddenly a patriots fans, and there are just "the other teams". its as if the patriots won the superbowl yesterday.
is this what toms hardware is? is this how us geeks are?
if this is true, it should be toms (champion)hardware or something like that? i personnally would like comparisons on both cpus highend to lowend, with price, so i can make a decision based on my needs and wallet size.
also, why dont they act the same toward video cards? they run test beds for them equally.
Message edited by Naw-yi on 10-25-2007 at 07:56:41 PM
Just use different sites, do you only get one source of information (of which may/may not be biased or false) before making a big decision? Some people only use expedia or orbitz or the other ones, or you could use a source like kayak which lists them all.
They were "AMD fanboys" during the few years that AMD was faster than Intel for gaming. Now that Intel is faster they are "Intel fanboys". I am a fanboy of what ever product is the best, and Intel is obviously the best choice for enthusiasts at the moment.
THG has changed a lot since Tom left. They used to run and re-run various tests constantly. Now the VGA charts are useless, since ATI has updated their drivers.
Where are the tests for the X38 mobos with DDR3 and PCI 2.0? Anandtec has already posted a few. Newegg has had them for over a week now. Don't they get hardware to test from the manufacturers anymore? Maybe Asus think THG is irrelevant now.
Please actually READ the articles that Tom's posts about the Intel Chips.
Then you may understand the reasons.
Unlike the old P4/AMD days, it does not take a special Mobo or Special Cooling to yield excellent OC's on the C2D.
3.2-3.4Ghz is simple on the 1mb Cache Models. w/ stock cooling.
3.0-3.2Ghz is simple on the 2mb/mb non Quad Chips. w/ stock cooling.
All of these will easily beat the AMD X2 6000+ or 6400+
Toss on a cheap after market cooler and the chips will run higher.
Basically, the Cheapest C2D is faster than anything AMD has to offer short of the Barcey.
Hopefully AMD will finally release a new Chip that is competitive in the enthusiast market.
When looking at Retail and OC is not an option, AMD is likely the way to go based on Stock Performance.
But as you noted with your own links, all the data somebody needs for stock performance is already there.
No need to review the same chip over and over again.
When after years of trivial updates, we finally will get something from AMD in Nov.
The facts speak for themselves. This is an enthusiest site. Amd chips simply dont offer the same value that Intel chips do in the enthusiest market. Did you happen to forget the last couple of years when Intel was a joke and every site focused on AMD chips? ie they ran cooler, OCd better, and offered more preformance per clock. The tables turned.
This fact is further illustrated by AMDs use of yardsale price cuts. No one would buy an AMD chip if they were at the old price points.
these are all the tests, reviews, articles are on toms home page. if ya look throughly, you'll fine some amd included tests. even the 500 dollar build was just intel cpu, then they added the amd 500 build recently.
th has been intel friendly for about 6 to 8 months now.
i have 2 rigs 1 gaming w/amd cpu, and a work rig w/p4.
so you can see my reasoning here, i would like a like more balance to the test beds.
intel's processors are excellent right now but if you like closely you can get a better performing cpu for the price form amd. example: all prices come from the following link, and i will only display price vers. performance, you can run the different tests if u wish.
price not to exceed 100.$=
intel= 2
amd=17
lets compare the top cpu from both that are under 100$.(couldnt fine the p4d925 so i upgraded to the p4d930)
again the top cpu from both are tested.(again i couldnt fine the cpu on the comparison chart so i when up to the c2de6300, which is 175.$ and i when down to the cd2e4300 because these are the only cpus closely available).
there it is. feel free to compare the different chart tests.
1 more test for ya, we all know that intel can be overclocked, but take into account that most often you have to buy a more expensive motherboard and cooling setup which adds more the the overall price of the rig. so ive tested these 2 cpus that are almost identical in price.
1st from intel @ 179.bucks the c2d e6550
2nd from amd @ 174. bucks the athlon 64 x2 6000+ = ran these tests
now are we now buying our cpus based solely on overclockability? the most expensive? is this why toms h is pushing the intel cpus like a good used car sales person would?
thank you, and plz dont flame, just intelligent, mature responses.
i could go through these debate many but - intel chips are superior and there is no way to show any amd cpu is better for anything. you may have some advantages on power usage but that was disproved last week - the article should have had more cpu's.
i could go though and find all the pro amd articles - like when they build $500 pc and used a celeron instead of low end p4, even an 805 would smoked the athlon and was only $7 dollars or so more. so it goes both ways! or how about when they constantly hammer the memory controller - how great amd's built in memory controller is?
well the same memory controller is part of the issue why amd is so messed up now.
or when the slam net burst - hey if like was 20./20 hide site we know that leakage would not stop the p4 from its 10ghz projected speed. but now we have hafnium gates
sure thg slams the 840 it was junk but that gave us the qx6700 that lead to the q6600 - which blows any amd "true quad out of the water"
ok i am just the IFB #1!
just remember amd is always #2 accept with built in graphics., o ya and "true quad cores" waits now: "native quad cores"
who cares try taking on 3.6ghz q6600 with that 1.7ghz barcie! it might get to 2.4ghz maybe!
a smart person would look at all sources - but you still find intel is superior. after all a $90 cpu a $200 cpu can all be set to run faster then any amd. plus clock for clock its faster.
amd will get that act together after ibm buys them and they stack cpu's vertically.
only thing here thats blow away is the prices. yes the intel score alittle higher but does that margin offset the 100 dollar prices difference? and yes go thru and prove your points w/links as i did. or what you say means nothing. and plz try and keep links related to th if at all possible, i couldnt with the above so i comparied with same service.
Message edited by Naw-yi on 10-25-2007 at 09:09:15 PM
i could go through these debate many but - intel chips are superior and there is no way to show any amd cpu is better for anything.
You are clearly thinking from an enthusiast standpoint. The mass market doesn't think like you do. I can't slam you for thinking the way you do since I am an enthusiast myself but I do try and wake up and realize that the majority of the market looks at what I can get for my money.
AMD clearly has some competitive chips in the mid to lower market range so the statement you make above is only true in the mind of the enthusiast with tunnel vision geared on wanting the latest and the greatest with deep pockets to support the habbit.
I DO NOT dislike either company (Intel or AMD) and I like the fact they drive each other to provide better products that give us what we want.
To those of you that are "Fan Boys" admittedly or not you should realize what each of the two of these companies have done to put pressure on each other to produce the products you so lovingly enjoy today. Sit back, enjoy the show and reap the benefits and rewards of both companies hard work to give you what you want.
Thats reality, like it or not, realize it or not and admit it or not.
amd will get that act together after ibm buys them and they stack cpu's vertically.
That would never get past SEC/Government scrutiny for Anti-Trust (monopoly) reasons. Intel's big enough as it is.
Regarding the relative lack of AMD coverage: It's not surprising since AMD's performance lead is long gone, the fact they have long delayed their latest offerings, and then followed up that delay with what amounts to a paper launch. Yes, the processors are technically available. Yes, they are reasonably competitive with Intel's mainstream chips. But the supply just isn't there. Disappointing, since the holiday buying season is upon us.
Anyways - When AMD has offerings to report on, I'm sure Tom's will inform us accordingly.
--------------- The worst part of my Vista 64 experience is having to listen to all of the individuals who apparently feel it's their 'Grand Mission In Life' to tell me about all of the things that (supposedly) don't work, when it *does* work.
The chart you posted is stock speeds - intel sets the clocks way down while amd sets the clocks near max.
the highest speed intel chip is 3ghz in 2 or 4 cores they will run 3.6ghz plus on air - the low end like a 6420 will run 3.2-3.4ghz not one but almost every single one and very stable.
most low end amd chips max out at 2.8ghz
the 6000+ can barely move past 3ghz
the newer amd x2 3.2ghz barly budges past stock speeds and its hot, as a slower intel 6420 (pretty high on the chart at stock speeds) will run as fast at cooler temperature then the 6000's' plus clock per clock will blow away amd
i am such a flamer - there is little difference in the real world i am just an intel fan boy!
Message edited by dragonsprayer on 10-25-2007 at 09:16:41 PM
