athlon comming back strong?

[j.o.s.h.1408]

hi is this the latest cpu thats competing with intels core 2 range? http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Produ...oductID=532106

a friend of mine from work is saying its better than most core 2's and is slighly better than a q6600 quad core according to benchmarks from toms hardware!
!

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2006.html

[aidanjt]

Not even close to competing. The Q6600 and E6850 are both cheaper, cooler, and more powerful.

[DanceswithUnix]

Interesting choice of benchmark.

Even with a personal distaste for Intel I have to admit they are just plain faster at the top end and at the lower price range massively better overclockers.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

proof? i just need some solid proof has i cant seem to find it from toms hardware

[DanceswithUnix]

lol! Go to your Tom's Hardware link, and under the "Choose Benchmark" choose just about any other benchmark. I tried a few, and they all showed Core 2 as faster.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

hehe just checked again and your correct BUT in quit a few benchmarks it performs better than a e6600!

[EtheAv8r]

... Dream on... I am afraid. An E6600 is only £137 compared to this AMD FX-74 at £199.

I was a solid user of AMD Athlon for 4-5 years, whet C2D at Christmas.... never looked back.

AMD cannot compete at the moment - and benchmarks are often meaningless, real world test will see C2D beating AMD at almost everything, and not just by a small margin.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

hey im no amd fanboy and i know intel are better but just trying to prove to a mate of mine how daft he sounds telling me an amd is cheaper and faster then most intel core 2

[aidanjt]

Tom's CPU matrix is pretty out of date, but anyway..
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts...07%2C609%2C603

[j.o.s.h.1408]

that link actualy shows that the amd fx is better than a e6600 and a e6800 !!!

[aidanjt]

There's lots of benchmark comparisons, use the dropdown menu to go between different benchmarks. In any cases, the E6800 is cheaper and faster in the majority, and the Q6600's raw processing power is miles ahead at a cheaper price. It's not like AMD chips went bad, they've just stalled in development and Intel has gained in massive ground. It's the ATi merger that hurt them.

[James Thorburn]

The FX-7x chips are sold singularly, to really take advantage of them you need to buy a pair. They are Socket F (same as Opterons), not Socket AM2.

If you are after a dual-core CPU and have AM2 already then the 6000+ is the best out there at present.

You can find our QuadFX review here.

[Thorsson]

You also can't really compare a Quad Core at a slower clock with a Dual Core at a faster clock. But if you look at the multi-tasking benchmarks they clearly show Intel's superiority: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=464&chart=193

[James Thorburn]

You also can't really compare a Quad Core at a slower clock with a Dual Core at a faster clock.

Sure you can. You just have to decide whats more important to you for a given price - single-threaded performance or multi-threading/multi-tasking.

[DanceswithUnix]

I don't personally trust Tom's Hardware, so here are some figures from Anandtech:

Comparison of Intel quad core with AMD 4x4
Dual core vs Dual core desktop parts

So Intel wins by about 14% in both cases in those charts.

AMD seem to have cut their prices again which gets them competative at the low cost desktop end, but sadly doesn't make their CPUs any faster for the top end.

[this_is_gav]

LOL, Anandtech are no better than TomsHardware. They're both as easily swung as each other.