War of the Dual-Cores

With AMD and Intel both starting to market their Dual-Cores to the individual consumer, I'm interested in hearing what some of you guys think. Who's done it better. Who's made the better Dual-Core. Is it AMD with their X2 line of processors, or Pentium with their Pentium D line of processors. Whats your opinion. IMHO, I've always had a thing for AMD. I've read tons of rave reviews of how easy it is to overclock them with out over-heating them. But what I find interesting is that Intel seems to have cheaper dual cores. This is odd because its usually AMD that is keeping the prices low. But as I see on newegg.com, Intels got FOUR dual-core processors that stay well under the price of the cheapest AMD dual-core. HMMMMMM.....

 

Yeh. I would go for the AMD

 

Intel had to rush to market their dual core processors!
http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?id=idgml-b577acdb-49d3-457b&s=39525
Have a read! It's pretty enlightening.

 

Its exactly the same as it always has been in the last few years,amd's dual core is a race horse,intels dual core is a workhorse,In single apps amd rule,in multi apps intel rule and as usual intels draw much more power than the amds because of the transistor count and in consequence give off more heat.

depending on what you want the cpu for will decide which you think is the best,i still would love to get my hands on a duel xeon server ATM,just for fun

 

Thats usually what ive heard recently Intels had to be racing to finish their products and get them shipped, since AMD discontinued the XP line they have less to think about and moved on to the Sempron as their socket A and socket 754 processor, the AMD 64 as their socket 754 and socket 939. The X2 and opeteron processor as the 939 also. So right now AMDs main focus is moving on... while Intel dwells on the past, and with intels its like impossible to overclock them! Whilst Intel has tons of different types and styles of processors... AMD only has 3...

 

Not true! I have an Intel P4 3.04E GHz processor, and they've definitely stepped up their abilities for overclocking...

My mobo supports dynamic overclocking (overclocks only when there's a high CPU load) and manual overclocking through BIOS, so maybe I got lucky, but the point remains: I've haven't had any troubles.

 

Thats really interesting what intel did with the rush design. Just goes to show you that the effieceny of the German Design Process is hard to beat! And I don't care what you say, AMD's are about 10 times easier to overclock. You can overclock almost all of there processors and you can get them up an extra .5 Ghz and not have to worry about overheating. Thats another reason I like AMD, not as much power is needed. I heard a story of a guy litterally cooking and egg on an Intel processor. Thats way to much wasted heat.

 

Heh, as long as it's not an athlon XP...I had a 2800+ before this processor, it was WAY hotter, and nowhere near as easy to overclock. I can get up to an extra 900 Mhz out of this Intel processor, and it runs cooler than the Athlon did w/o overclocking. Heh, just not with the stock heat sink, though...Intel's SUCK. I didn't have the stock heatsink on the AMD either, though so it's all fair.

I'm not trying to antagonize, I do believe that AMD has pulled into the market lead, especially w/ their dual cores. My next machine likely will have an AMD processor.....if they roll out the nanowire technology as well as Intel does. That will be big news soon, I'm sure.

 

They have a bit more than that.

I'll skip socket A for now...

Starting with 754:
Sempron 64 (Paris, Palermo)
Athlon 64 (Clawhammer, Newcastle)

939:
Athlon 64 (Newcastle, Sledgehammer, Winchester, Venice, Sandiego)
Athlon FX (Sledgehammer, Sandiego)
Athlon X2 (Manchester, Toledo)

My info may be a bit, off, but, you have to be very careful with AMD cpus, making sure you are getting exactly what you are wanting.

 

Don't forget the Opteron Processors or the Turion Processors.

 

turions arent even out yet....

But Turions are supposed to be FAR superior to Intels newest... My Athlon XP 2800+ doesnt OC much, but i hear the Athlon 64s and X2s OC like a dream...

Does anyone know what they used in Japan to reach the world record of 7GHz?

 

Hrm.... I missed that

Heres the REAL story behind intels "rush job"

Source :Yahoo!

 

Amd vs Intel.

Well, from reading many websites. It appears that speed (amd) and performance (intell) is the big question here. (I may have these backwards).

Anyway, from what I've read. If you want to use your pc as an EXPENSIVE game machine, then use AMD.

If you want to use your EXPENSIVE computer to render graphics, video, audio (not burning mp3's, but real audio applications, as in audio studios) or what not, use INTEL.

Or just play your games on xbox, PS, or Nintedo devices.....

 

The FX-57 costs more than the X2 4800...... its cost about as much as the 999 dollar intel.

 

Personally, as I type this, I really don't know if anyone (gamers) really need two cores. Does it speed anything up? No.

Unless the application has instructions for two cores, then the benefits will come about.

As far as I know, having a dual core CPU, is most benefitial for intensive applications, like render farms and audio/video processing. Games? Bah.... for now.....

 

Blindly supporting Intel, is dumb. Too many times has AMD had faster CPUs, with less cache. So xp1, you can have your larger cache CPUs all you want. I'll take whats faster in what I do,and negligeable in other areas.

 

Only a fool believes that raw mhz = a faster CPU.