Why should i not go AMD?

[shaithis]

I'd love to know how many of the people upgrading to c2d acutally do work that warrents and utilises this ultimate power that everybody is shouting about.

Probably not that many but then if everyone waited to upgrade until they absolutely had to, then the PC market would be no-where near as advanced as it is today.

Keep that R&D money churning

[tigerboyce]

thats exactly my point, why should i get intel just because its faster, it seems to me that intel has the advantage, but is it really worth it? unless you want bragging rights

[DanceswithUnix]

If you are not bothered about bragging rights, get the 3800 x2 instead. Spend the difference on the graphics card if you want a faster games playing machine, or else spend it on memory.

[aidanjt]

As I already pointed out, there's more to C2D than raw brute performance. The hardware virtualisation of this chip can do some very impressive things.

[moogle]

I'd love to know how many of the people upgrading to c2d acutally do work that warrents and utilises this ultimate power that everybody is shouting about.

well, we might not use its full power all the time, but it speeds up what we do, apps open faster, process information faster etc.

thats exactly my point, why should i get intel just because its faster, it seems to me that intel has the advantage, but is it really worth it? unless you want bragging rights

you just said it there, "it IS faster" than almost all amd's, £50 more than the x2 3800 you get a cpu that outperforms a £500 one.

[DanceswithUnix]

As I already pointed out, there's more to C2D than raw brute performance. The hardware virtualisation of this chip can do some very impressive things.

Can it?

Still not seen any figures yet to see what real world benefits you get.

I am typing this on a virtual Linux PC that is crippled by an underlying Windows host such that the whole thing freezes occasionally for about 10 seconds. I think it is fondling the swap file or something. I will be fascinated to see what this technology does for me, when I already find running virtual Windows on a Linux host pretty smooth on my 3000+ at home.

<stir>
If you want virtualisation, I'm sure I read that the AMD implementation in the latest Opterons is better thanks to tricks they can pull with the intergrated memory controller
</stir>

[aidanjt]

kvm ftw. The project is only been public for 3 months and it's already in the kernel.

[Mad-Max]

Go with what ever you like personally a lot of people will tell you to go with C2D and OC

[beachboy]

tigerboyce,
As a Linux user, I am with DanceswithUnix on this one, as I suspect you are yourself. It all depends on what you require your pc to do. There is no doubting that Core2Duo cpus rule the roost on pure speed but are you going to be able take advantage of all that extra performance capability, above and beyond an AMD x2 3800 dual core?
Sit down with a blank sheet of paper and list the requirements of your system. Don't forget that generally speaking, Intel boards are also more expensive. As was mentioned earlier you can put the money you save on the cpu and board to more productive use elsewhere in your system.
If you are looking for value for money and outright, foot-to-the-floor performance is not vital then get an x2 3800. You will not regret it. If you absolutely must have the MAX POWER then get a Core2 Duo.
As you probably know, the x2 3800 also supports virtualisation.
You pays yer money etc...

[kalniel]

thats exactly my point, why should i get intel just because its faster, it seems to me that intel has the advantage, but is it really worth it? unless you want bragging rights

Core 2 Duo runs cooler, quieter (stock fan wise), and uses less power. Further more a faster chip will last you longer before you have to upgrade. People aren't buying for performance now - they are buying a chip that they want to remain useful for longer. Thus in practically every way, Core 2 Duo is better.

I'm well chuffed with my X2 3800, even if it's socket 939, but if I was buying now I'd get a c2d without question.

[spazman]

Buying an AMD at the moment is like buying a porshe boxter when for an extra few quid you could have a ferrari 430. Trying to find ways to justify the extra expence is just plain stupid. The Core 2 Duo is massivley superior, it WILL run games faster it WILL encode faster it IS faster, and the bang for buck (especially when overclocked) is amazing. You have to think about how long your system is going to last, a core 2 duo at 3ghz is going to be useable for longer than a x2 3800. Fanboyism is stupid, go with the best it makes sence.

[sawyen]

Buying an AMD at the moment is like buying a porshe boxter when for an extra few quid you could have a ferrari 430. Trying to find ways to justify the extra expence is just plain stupid. The Core 2 Duo is massivley superior, it WILL run games faster it WILL encode faster it IS faster, and the bang for buck (especially when overclocked) is amazing. You have to think about how long your system is going to last, a core 2 duo at 3ghz is going to be useable for longer than a x2 3800. Fanboyism is stupid, go with the best it makes sence.

Again, the point of the discussion some pointed out is whether you really need that ferrari 430.

There are far better ways to spend that money for example. If your computing needs will only need a 3800+ X2 then there is little reason to go the extra mile.

&#163;60 can do lots if you think about it. If you're an avid gamer, &#163;60 can go further by say a bump from 8800GTS to a GTX, a 7900GS to a X1950XT, or even from a 7300GS to a 7900GS... Which will provide you with better future proofing in games than spending the &#163;60 on the CPU..

60 quid can also go to other places on the PC, such as a MIGHTY big hard drive, or 2.. if your storage needs outweigh your CPU needs. or a RAID card, or a better sound card, or a bigger monitor. Which will provide a more significant gain than getting c2D IMO..

Again, I'm not detering ppl from C2D. I got one (the fastest one on lappies) myself on my new spanking HP notebook now. Its a mighty fast chip.. on benchmark that shows it.. And on general desktop work and all.. I really didnt impress me all that much. Sure it gets ur DVD encoding done faster, but since you're going to be getting a cuppa and all, you seriously woundnt notice it. At least I didnt.. If you sit in front of your screen and count the minutes, you'll probably go WAAAAOO.. then thats about it..

The only bit which DID help me is the sim duration for my molecular prediction softwares and de novo stochastics software. It did churn about 20% faster to the result page. And that did help me as I do not have to leave my system on full load for that extra 6.5 hours. But other than that, its just another CPU that you'll never notice the speed if you have both systems running non-CPU intensive tasks.. although most ppl will find excuses to say they ARE faster, even if its just a 'feel' thingy

EDIT: 60 quid can also do heaps more out of the computing world.. say for Valentines, .. Just for the guys that totally forgotten about it and risk getting neck-choked by the missus.. 60 quid means a bump from a standard estee gift pack to a premium one.. a bump for a couple more goodies from Body Shop, or an extra top together with the jacket you're getting her..

[Blitzen]

Eh???
YOu would rather spend £60 on the Mrs than spend it on your rig???



PRIORITIES WRONG!!!!!!

[Spud1]

Go for a C2D - seriously its worth the extra &#163;60. Why?

The extra performance you can squeeze out of them is one reason - sure it may be faster than you need *now* (ie, your graphics may be the limiting factor) but what about in 6 months time? People tend to upgrade in steps, CPU/mobo then gfx then ram etc etc, so there will always be something limiting your system..this way you remove the CPU problem. That AMD chip you mentioned will probably be fast enough for you, but only just..

Then theres the cache on the chip - the C2D has double what the AMD has which will certainly help...although the differences in chip architechture lessen the effect a little.

Intel has traditionally always had better floating point speed than the AMD chips too..i;'ve not been able to find figures to prove this with the new chips but I would expect its true also.

Then theres the 'fanboy' brand loyalty aspect..the illogical part I suppose Maybe its just good advertising or the fact that Intel got in there first all those years ago, and AMD just copied them..

[sawyen]

Go for a C2D - seriously its worth the extra &#163;60. Why?

The extra performance you can squeeze out of them is one reason - sure it may be faster than you need *now* (ie, your graphics may be the limiting factor) but what about in 6 months time? People tend to upgrade in steps, CPU/mobo then gfx then ram etc etc, so there will always be something limiting your system..this way you remove the CPU problem. That AMD chip you mentioned will probably be fast enough for you, but only just..

Then theres the cache on the chip - the C2D has double what the AMD has which will certainly help...although the differences in chip architechture lessen the effect a little.

Intel has traditionally always had better floating point speed than the AMD chips too..i;'ve not been able to find figures to prove this with the new chips but I would expect its true also.

Then theres the 'fanboy' brand loyalty aspect..the illogical part I suppose Maybe its just good advertising or the fact that Intel got in there first all those years ago, and AMD just copied them..

I never said that C2D was not worth the money, but I'm just trying to justify the cost of &#163;60, not that its future proof or anything else; but rather if the &#163;60 is the most logical money spent, even for an enthusiast.

Yes, upgrade usually goes stepwise. But you solve problems by eliminating bottlenecks one by one. When the bottleneck reaches the CPU, THEN its time to go C2D. In all honesty, giving a socket 754 running PCI-E a 8800GTX, it will still run almost 90% of its speed, and that gives a bigger jump than say getting a E6300.

Dont know really, thats just MHO.. &#163;60 can go somewhere else where it makes alot more difference. C2D will only be worth it when you actually need it, and that it makes a significant enough boost and is within your monetary stretch.

I have 2 systems running side by side, and as much as I'm amazed by the speed of C2D in benchies.. Its still the same PC, even using scientific softwares which are way more stressful than what most of others are using.

[tigerboyce]

yeh its hard to decide as that money can be spent elsewhere which can make alot of differece. yes i also see the point about the more power which is probably making me sway towards going for a Intel chip. i guess ill just have to drop that antec 900 that i really ewanted for something cheaper