Intel vs. AMD (dual core)

Come on guys, we all know that Intel is obviously the more superior company.... :rofl:

Last edited by Josh on Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total

AMD all the way :)

AMD's dual-cores are faster than Intel's in pretty much everything.  AMD even beats Intel in A/V encoding which in the past with single core CPU's Intel help the crown.

The only problem is the price of the X2's.  The cheapest one is the 3800+ which is I think is a little under $400.  The cheapest Pentuim D is around $250.  However the slowest A64 X2 is still pretty close to to the fastest Pentuim D in overall performance.

Also The X2s work in most existing socket 939 motherboards except VIA K8T890 ones.  For Intel though if you already have a LGA775 Pentium 4 system and want to upgrade to a Pentuim D you will need to buy a new mobo.

Also just like with single core AMD uses much less power.  So for a quietr system AMD is a better choice too.

So AMD is the winner here.  Basically the only advantage Intel has is it's lower prices.

AMD makes more efficient & user friendly products.

I think its clear. price/performance AMD has been on top for years now.

Last edited by KoolDrew on Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:08 am; edited 1 time in total

yes but the X2 and P-D are not in the same class. Bandwidth by the X2 are 4 times that of the P-D. There is no comparision.

The largest fact yet (as KoolDrew previously said) remains that for the price of a dual core Intel motherboard as well as a dual core Intel processor, you will get a dual core X2, and since it is already compatible with your Socket 939 motherboard after a BIOS update, you are basically spending the same amount of money.

I do agree that Intel is selling their dual cores dirt cheap compared to AMD, but the performance gain found in AMD processors is definitely worth the money put into it.

The reasonthe AMD dualcores are faster is because of their individual cache per core, intel's cache is shared between the two, evn though the sharing chae is the best way for the procesors to communicate, amds chace has a muchlower latency.

Just liek why does hte dothan at the same speed as the fx57 beat it? Becuase its chace is 10ns in latency whiel the fx57's is 17ns. It makes ahuge differnce. Dualcores need time to mature, jsut wait for intels yonah for notebooks and conroe for desktops, thats dual core Dothan with 4mb shared ultra fast cahce.

Good post, but what is Dothan? O_o

Dothan is intels newest Pentium-M, is clock for cokfaster than an fx 55 and fx 57 its just better than k8 aritechture all together. Is based off hte P3 Tulitan core but its got nice short piplines and 10ns of 2 mb of levl 2 chache. Now they come at 533 fsb, and they offer tpd of 30-25watts, the cooler of al the processors. THey are Ocing beats, 3.8ghz under phase got 19 sec superpi hold WR it hold WR in 3dmark 01, because its limited to 1 video card, if it had cpapbilit of sli it would hold 3d mark 03 and 05

Last edited by simple on Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total

I would say AMD's as I got a AMD 64 3300+ and it works like a pro.
I had a Intel (not the latest) it was slow and not that good for gamers.

I only know AMD's Dual Core and Intel, But i vote for AMD because AMD has to be the best :D i think :P