Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 23 of 23

Thread: why buy a C2D?

  1. #17
    Flat cap, Whippets, Cave. Clunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked
    725 times in 459 posts
    Edit: ignore this more than usual.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzen View Post
    stupid betond belief.
    You owe it to yourself to click here really.

  2. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    5 times in 5 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BubbySoup View Post
    They are far more efficient processors and overclock like crazy.

    2 very good reasons right there.
    +1 on that

    I couldnt believe the difference from an s939 4800+ x2 to my standard clock e6600, they are truely awesome chips.

  3. #19
    NOT Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,905
    Thanks
    412
    Thanked
    278 times in 253 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie G View Post
    2 of the greatest generalisations ever made?
    i think so too , since AMD have been ahead of Intel ever since the Athlons, 1Ghz Race up until these Core2Duo's came out.

  4. #20
    Yeah dude! NightshadowUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    59 times in 57 posts
    • NightshadowUK's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z87M GAMING
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 4790K [Macho Rev.B]
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • Crucial M500 [240GB] & MX500 [1TB]
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4GB Sapphire 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • 620W Corsair HX
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08B-E [AP181 & NF-S12B]
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Home [64bit]
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2412M
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 200Mb
    Quote Originally Posted by derchris View Post
    I think [Intel] will always be faster then AMD.
    Wrong wrong wrong.

    Before Core 2 Duo there was the Pentium D, who's competition came in the form of AMD's X2 CPU's.

    Now aside from it being common knowledge that X2's walked all over Pentium D's (including in video editing), according to this...

    http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=439&chart=185

    ... it took a 3.2GHz clocked Pentium D to defeat the entry level X2 (3800+) which was clocked at just 2GHz.

    And before that the single core AMD 64's laughed at Pentium 4's.

    It's true that before Core 2 Duo, Intel cores were 'good' at number crunching, but only 'good' as far as they didn't get royally owned by AMD CPU's *as much* in tasks of this nature.

    Don't be such a mindless fanboy, the fact is that AMD CPU's have been 'better' than Intel's for the past few years and it's only down to Core 2 Duo that this is now no longer the case.

    EDIT: Sorry for messing up your thread but nvening below has done a good job of explaining what you need to know.
    Last edited by NightshadowUK; 31-03-2007 at 11:55 PM.

  5. #21
    lazy student nvening's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,656
    Thanks
    196
    Thanked
    31 times in 30 posts
    Basically clock speed is only a valid comparison between processors belonging to the same family.

    For example in a comparison between two C2Ds clocked at 3GHz and 3.5GHz the 3.5GHz would be faster. However if you then tried to compare it to a net burst (aka pentium 4) even a 4GHz model would be much slower than a 3GHz C2D.

    This is because of differences in how the processor works (that's the technical bit )

    Also you have to factor in other differences for example the number of cores and the cache sizes.

    Bottom line is your 2GHz AMD64 will be a lot slower than a C2D 2.13GHz despite the small difference in clock speed.

    And DirectX 10 is to do with graphics cards not processors.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  6. #22
    smells
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    346
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 3 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by moogle View Post
    i think so too , since AMD have been ahead of Intel ever since the Athlons, 1Ghz Race up until these Core2Duo's came out.
    Thats a little bit of a one sided assessment.

    The original Katmai core Pentium III's with there external, half core speed, L2 cache were definately behind the Slot A Athlon's.

    The Coppermine core introduced on-die L2 running at full speed as well as fixing a pipeline stall issue in the P6 microarchitecture and clock-for-clock were definately competitive with the even the early socketed Athlon's.
    Some of the Coppermine CPU's were legendary overclockers. I still have fond memories of my Pentium III 700MHz SL45Y.
    Using a Slocket + Abit BE6-II RAID that was able to scale over 1GHz stablely with a decent aircooler and a bit of a voltage bump.

    Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 Northwood as clockspeeds scaled up the Pentium 4 was the one to have, it was commonly acknowledge that the Pentium 4 3.0/3.2GHz had the upper hand over the Athlon XP 3000/3200+ chips.

    Even with early Athlon 64's it was certainly close in benchmarking terms.
    The Pentium 4 Extreme Edition was competitive with the Athlon FX-51 and standard Northwoods against Socket 754 Athlon 64's was a similar story. Some benchmarks would go Intels way, other AMDs (and not just video encoding, games as well).

    It was only really with the move to the Prescott core that Intel really fell behind.
    Had it scaled as hoped then it could have been competitive but gate leakage on the 90nm process was its downfall.
    The clockspeed limitations of the Prescott core were always a thermal limitation, electrically the CPUs pipeline stages were short enough that if you keep the temperature in check (talking here LN2) they can scale up to over 7GHz.
    In fact as the 90nm process was tuned to reduce leakage many chips could hit 5GHz with reasonable cooling, although still at too higher wattage to make it commercially viable.

    It's easy to look at the last two years and say its all been AMDs way, but looking at a broad cross-spectrum of benchmarks and before that the performance crown has been back and forth over the years.

  7. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • tommason's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Abit QuadGT
      • CPU:
      • C2D e6600
      • Memory:
      • 4Gb DDR2
      • Storage:
      • 1x76Gb Raptor & 1x200Gb Seagate Barracuda
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gainward 8800GTS
      • PSU:
      • 450W Zalman
      • Case:
      • Lian Li v1000
      • Operating System:
      • vista home premium
      • Monitor(s):
      • 19" Widescreen
      • Internet:
      • BT 8mb
    ok - thanks all for the input - reckon I'm going to upgrade - have begun buying stuff anyway - and need dx10 for crysis !!!!!
    Cheers!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why did you buy the car that you drive?
    By XTR in forum Automotive
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 08-02-2014, 05:35 PM
  2. Windows Vista retail doomed unless Microsoft cuts prices?
    By Bob Crabtree in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 02-04-2007, 01:05 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-03-2007, 10:40 PM
  4. To buy or not to buy...
    By myth in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 09:52 PM
  5. Just got my money, what should i buy?
    By Bboy_Jon in forum Chassis and Mods
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 03:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •