Confused about Processors

hi,

ive been wanting to get a new pc for a while now, but im really confused about processors,

i was looking at getting the AMD athlon 64 Fx-74 Quad platform
but would the intell Core2 Extreme be a better choice


for overall performace, would their even be a noticable difference?
from what ive seen the AMD athlon 64 Fx-74 Quad platform would use a hell of alot more power than the intell counterpart. (would this increase my electricity bill noticablly:confused)

which would you recomend and why?
thanks.

 

aren't the intel extreme's crazy expensive?? I'd go with the fx series.

 

As I understand it, electric bill doesn't really enter into it. A quad can multitask better, do more things at the same time, but really the software hasn't been developed for it.

A faster serial machine is more likely to please on the short term, you will see faster performance.

A CPU not doing anything doesn't use as much juice as one that is working full time. They use electricity, but the real problem is heat. The hotter they run, the harder to cool, and the more likely failure will happen as a result.

The core problem (no pun intended) is the software isn't really designed for multicore CPU's yet.

 

Though i agree that software limitation is an issue to consider, we'll be seeing much optimization for multi-core CPUs in the very very near future. When i say multi-core i mean every piece of software that was optimized for a dual-core will probably have code that uses more cores if they are available (the game Bioshock is one example). So i'd always advise WITH buying quad-cores, even if you have to wait a while to get to their full potential.

As regarding the CPU comparison, if you don't factor in price, take a look at Tom's Hardware's CPU charts ( http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html ) [Click "CPU Charts" on the left list] to view various benchmarks of all currently available processors.

Hope that helps

 

So far, gaming is one of the few uses for multi-core processors. Excel just doesn't need that kind of processing power.

Deciding whether you need two or four cores, you need to figure out what you're going to use it for. Gaming is more cores is better. Video and audio stuff, more cores. Word processing and surfing the web is a less processor intensive thing and requires fewer.

That said AMD is always the better choice.

 

I beg to differ on the AMD issue, i've always been an AMD fan back in the single core days, far superior performance, but charts and benchmarks these days show it has fallen behind with the introduction of dual cores. Unless they manage to do something exceptional i'd say the superior choice THESE DAYS is the Core2Duo line. I must stress again, that i've never been a fan of Intel (Hey i'm a gamer, remember? We LOVE AMD's to death!) But, one must be fair and objective, if something outperforms, it gets recommended.

That said i again hope the thread maker would take a look at Tom's CPU charts (or anything similar for comparing CPUs) if needed for a raw-power comparison or which is more value for money (the most logical approach if performance is an issue).

Then again your argument, Triaxx, is correct, so Grunty, can you please state your main use ?

 

Agreed, Intel has stomped AMD into the ground lately in terms of CPU performance as of late.

The numbers are there to prove it, I don't know why anyone would say otherwise.


As for multi core gaming...not a lot of games out there are multi-core aware, which means for games, its not exactly ideal yet, wither, unless you play multiple instances of a game.

 

I've found that multi-core processors are always superior in gaming systems. I've noticed some pretty big speed ups. While AMD's maybe statistically slower, I've found them more stable and consistent than comparable Intels. I've also notice much cooler temperatures.

 

Right , im going to adress this from a pretty much 'Intel vs. AMD' point of veiw. Previosly , even as far as a year back , I would have given you the definative answer - 'Go AMD'. Now , after the introduction of duo / dual cores , my veiw has changed dramatically.

Intel is the way forward well , at this point in time , thats how my opinion stands. After looking at various benchmark scores , usually intel blows AMD out of the water. Especially from a gaming point of veiw.

For example , heres tests done , using the games Oblivion and Rainbow 6 ; Vegas ;

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpus/oblivion.gif

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpus/r6-vegas.gif


And to sway your decision even more , heres an article , done by the guys over at TechReport.com , looking at specifically your question.

TechReport - Intel vs. AMD


Hope I helped

- Ryan

 

@Triaxx

That might be true, but factor in compatibility issues and you come up with an argument still favorable to intel.

In a way that's also one of the problems of third-world countries; support for "non-standard" products (heck even sales) is almost non-existent. back when i built my first system no one here offered AMD Cpu's at all. When i went to KSA they offered it for double intel's prices (!!).

Granted all the above doesn't add to help the thread maker much, but it's info and more info is always good =D .

 

You find multi core CPUs are superior for gaming because they are more efficient and quicker, but not because of the multiple cores.

 

Using FPS as a benchmark? What a horrible way to test processor efficiency.

Supreme Commander is my multi core benchmarking game. It fully supports dual and quad core. I had the opportunity to test it recently on a pair of nearly identical dual core systems. The AMD was actually the slower, but ran it much smoother than the Intel.

 

Slower but ran smoother?


How do you propose that works out?

You can't say something like this:

and then say something like this:

Does your perception make it somehow more valid of a benchmark?

 

Agreed.

http://techreport.com/r.x/core2-qx6850/lame-cbr-ms.gif

 

I was actually playing the game, while watching a processor monitor on the other screen. The Intel jerked from 60% to 80% usage. The AMD stayed at 97% the whole time. They both produced some screen jerk, but the AMD had less of it. When the Intel jumped, the game would jerk violently and then go back to normal.

That is a much more useful test. What I meant, is that testing Frames per second on a game that relys so heavily on the video card nullifies testing FPS.

 

Surely you aren't alone in your observations. Do you have any websites that may solidfy your claim?

 

This isn't really a reply as much as a question that definitely falls under the category of "Confused about Processors." I just bought a new computer, I'm very happy with it, but I have a question. I've been an AMD fan, preferring them over Intel, for about the last 4-5 years. The computer I just bought was on sale with a list of specs printed out by the store where I purchased it, Office Depot. It listed the computer as having a duo or dual core processor. It has an AMD Athlon 64 4000+/2.6GHz. Is this a duo or dual core or a single core processor? I'm not returning the product either way, I'm just confused.

 

You forgot the "x2" that comes after the "64" that makes it a dead giveaway but yeah it is.

As far as intel vs amd intel does have the leg up in most cases Ive seen . But Im not made of money so I always go with AMD. The difference between an intel and amd cpu in the same "class' is just to big most of the time in my experience.

 

The x2 is what had me finally come here and ask this. No where on my box that the computer came in from the store, sealed, is there an x2 after the 4000+, but I googled the hell out what IS on my box. Is the x2 just a given. Anyway, do I have a duo or dual core processor or not, I'm really just curious...I'm a mini rebel. I prefer AMD and Firefox has been my browser of choice for years...

 

Click "start" and in the "run" or "search" bar (depending on if yo have xp or vista) type dxdiag and hit enter in the system information area your processor should be listed. Or right click "My computer" and under the system area it should also be listed. Thats is going to much more accurate than what might be printed on a box.

 

To rman56: when you have your own question, it is generally better to start your own thread, even if the question is relevant to the thread you're "hijacking". In any case, if the spec sheet doesn't say 'Athlon64 X2 4000+' then you do NOT have a dual core processor. If the PC was sold to as a dual core machine, than you have an issue to take up with the retailer, because you were mislead. To get the true 'lowdown' on your CPU, download and run CPU-Z or Crystal CPUID. They are CPU info tools. They will tell you EXACTLY which CPU you have.
CPU-Z http://majorgeeks.com/CPU-Z_d425.html
Crystal CPUID http://majorgeeks.com/CrystalCPUID_d5000.html
I have attached screen shots of both CPU-Z and Crystal CPUID running on my Athlon X2 (dual core) processor....