Whats better Amd Dual-core or Pentium D?
- Thread starter J_Hay
- Start date
You must have a good bit of ram as well. I know autocad needs alot, so does photoshop if you get into multi layers and lots of editing.
I am all in for Intel - though earlier Intel Chips would generate more heat and then sometime back when pentiums were launched - They had Floating point errors - Then AMD was first to market 64 Bit instruction set processor - Intel meekly copied that.
Reason - I am for intel - I feel more secure with future upgrades and compatibility - both in terms of software and Hardware.
Reason - I am for intel - I feel more secure with future upgrades and compatibility - both in terms of software and Hardware.
The Pentium 4 - net burst acrhitechure was pretty much spanked left right and centre by the Athlon 64 series.With the Core 2 though, Intel rebuilt from the ground up, making a superior cpu to AMD's current offerings.
http://tinyurl.com/ytcj52
Given Article was submitted/done on 07 December 2005.
Things have changed quite a lot since then. Even I was planning a Switch - But Intel mended its ways . Intel is planning for 32 core processor. Will post more details on that on monday
Given Article was submitted/done on 07 December 2005.
Things have changed quite a lot since then. Even I was planning a Switch - But Intel mended its ways . Intel is planning for 32 core processor. Will post more details on that on monday
Like the review says, the AMD dual core's of 2005 destroyed the Pentium D dual cores. The athlon 64 dual cores are superior to the Pentium D dual cores in every respect.
If you look at a modern comparison though, you see the opposite.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014655,00.asp
Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD X2 AM2--Top to Bottom
Final Thoughts: Your Needs
It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64 X2. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64 X2s.
In other applications, it's not so clear. For many users, adequate performance is "good enough," and the lowest-cost solution may be optimal in those cases. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ certainly offers great value, at under $160, and even the 4200+ can be found for under $200. However, the overall "sweet spot" seems to be the two midrange Intel CPUs—the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600. The E6600 offers a higher clock rate and larger L2 cache, while the E6400 can be found for well under $250. At the rarified high end, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is simply in a class by itself. If you're willing to blow over $800 for a processor, then going a couple hundred bucks more doesn't seem quite so extreme.
Of course, this is only a snapshot in time. We'll likely see newer CPUs from both companies, including Intel's Kentsfield quad core processor and AMD's 4x4 pseudo quad core effort. But that's the future. Today, you've got a wealth of good choices from both companies. But Intel seems to be leading the pack for now.
Well, Definitely a superior product is welcome - But what about affordability ?
There economics wins . And people wait for gizmos to get cheaper .
I will keep my fingers crossed on cores - Once when we are done with Multiple core processors - What goes next in processor Line ? Will love to know more.
As of now - I am satisfied with Intel dual core
.
My 2 cents - Given a OS, If a computer (Desktop) comes up the instant I turn it on. Goes down - the moment I turn it off - - I will call it good enough
There economics wins . And people wait for gizmos to get cheaper .
I will keep my fingers crossed on cores - Once when we are done with Multiple core processors - What goes next in processor Line ? Will love to know more.
As of now - I am satisfied with Intel dual core
. My 2 cents - Given a OS, If a computer (Desktop) comes up the instant I turn it on. Goes down - the moment I turn it off - - I will call it good enough
Like the review says, the AMD dual core's of 2005 destroyed the Pentium D dual cores. The athlon 64 dual cores are superior to the Pentium D dual cores in every respect.
If you look at a modern comparison though, you see the opposite.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2014655,00.asp
Intel Core 2 Duo Vs. AMD X2 AM2--Top to Bottom
Final Thoughts: Your Needs
It's clear that Intel's Core 2 Duo lineup offers superior performance across the product line when compared with AMD's Athlon 64 X2. In some applications, even a lower-cost Core 2 Duo can outperform some of the higher-end Athlon 64 X2s.
In other applications, it's not so clear. For many users, adequate performance is "good enough," and the lowest-cost solution may be optimal in those cases. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 3800+ certainly offers great value, at under $160, and even the 4200+ can be found for under $200. However, the overall "sweet spot" seems to be the two midrange Intel CPUs—the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6600. The E6600 offers a higher clock rate and larger L2 cache, while the E6400 can be found for well under $250. At the rarified high end, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is simply in a class by itself. If you're willing to blow over $800 for a processor, then going a couple hundred bucks more doesn't seem quite so extreme.
Check out our Real Gaming Challenge: Intel vs. AMD
Of course, this is only a snapshot in time. We'll likely see newer CPUs from both companies, including Intel's Kentsfield quad core processor and AMD's 4x4 pseudo quad core effort. But that's the future. Today, you've got a wealth of good choices from both companies. But Intel seems to be leading the pack for now.
I have a minor reading problem. Didn't realise that comparison was so old and as I've just bought an AMD 64 bit processor, and the salesman told me it was the best thing since sliced bread, I couldn't help myself. Seriously, what I have is more than good enough for my purposes. :roll:
Juan, Athlon 64's are still an awesome CPU. Nothing slow about them. The article I posted is from a geek tech site, the tests they run don't resemble what a cpu would day to day.
You bought an FX brand of the 64 didn't you?
You bought an FX brand of the 64 didn't you?
my 64 is a nice bit of kit. It's an old one but even without a dual core it's quite capable of multiple tasks. I often watch video, chat, browse and burn DVD's all at the same time.
My previous PC had an athlon 64, they are great cpu's. Intel had to develop a whole new CPU to compete with the 64's as the pentium 4 was a dud in comparison.
Hey J_Hay,
If you compare Athlon X2 vs. Pentium D, there really is no comparison. The performance per watt of the X2 is much better than the Pentium D (ie. at the same clock speed, the X2 can do more). Also consider that the Pentium D runs much hotter and requires more power... hotter and more power usually means a case with more fans... which leads to more noise. If you plan to overclock, the Pentium D is not a good choice.
If you compare Athlon X2 vs. Pentium D, there really is no comparison. The performance per watt of the X2 is much better than the Pentium D (ie. at the same clock speed, the X2 can do more). Also consider that the Pentium D runs much hotter and requires more power... hotter and more power usually means a case with more fans... which leads to more noise. If you plan to overclock, the Pentium D is not a good choice.
get a core2duo! the current AmD aint really good for gaming....core2duo is currently best for gaming...
I take offense to that allen. Are you calling me dumb, because your rash generalizations certainly seem to say so.
I don't think there's any context necessary when you make a blanket statement such as "Salesman said so ??? Those guys are plain dumb. If they were not dumb they would be working some place else, probably system admin at some place."
I started as a sales associate at a computer store before moving into management. Thus I would be a computer salesman. Thus I would be "plain dumb."
I'm not trying to ride you, I'm just suggesting you watch your blanket statements in future discussions. There are (more than a few) salespeople I have worked with who know more about computers than anyone in the forum by a mile, and I think it was an unfair generalization for you to make - regardless of the "context" you're trying to now put it under, it still applies to all when you say it as such.
Yeah. The salesman sort of indicated that the FX was almost as rare as hen's teeth. I wasn't completely taken in by that, but the price was more than right at the time. You have to understand that I'm not a computer expert. I surf the web, do a bit of word processing, do a bit of fiddling with photos from digital camera, not much else. I can't imagine needing anything faster for what I do. I'm a two finger typist......the machine is too fast for me already....:roll:;-)
BTW, has anyone used one of these programs that type out what you say?