Processor battle!

[Blue Blur]

I'm using a Duron.

I guess it's fine? I mean if you compared to a Pentium 3 which I think would be its proper competition.

I get a laptop for Christmas and it's an AMD, but I didn't care what processor it had because I totally got it for $400 only on black friday.

Duron is basically a tuned down Athlon. You'd be best off with an Intel Celeron for comparison.

With what experience I've gotten from dealing with both companies, AMD just kills Intel. It's nice to have a Core 2, but not when they cost about twice as much as a nearly equivalent Athlon X2. Besides that, having a clack speed only about 500 megahertz is really not all that much better. I always take the last of the mid-range processors when speccing out a computer, and I have yet to have AMD fail me. Intel, on the other hand, vastly separates their price range, and over complicates my life. Anger...

As for the difference between Dual core and Quad, well... suffice to say there's not much there for me to judge. Quads don't run any better for me than duals, unless you're running a benchmark, and that usually depends more on the video card. But duals are much cheaper, so that's my choice there.

[Softpaw]

As for the difference between Dual core and Quad, well... suffice to say there's not much there for me to judge. Quads don't run any better for me than duals, unless you're running a benchmark, and that usually depends more on the video card. But duals are much cheaper, so that's my choice there.

Agreed, most desktop system never need more than two processors/cores/psuedo-cores (aka hyperthreading), and few desktop applications can use more than that (I'm not sure if Windows XP can even handle more than 2, anyone have experience with this?), if they can even make proper use of two processors. Some applications even have problems with hyperthreading (thankfully, they are few in number). The quads are intended more for servers, where having a bunch of processors/cores is a good thing, and most server OSes and applications can make good use of that much multi-threading power.

[Gecko]

With what experience I've gotten from dealing with both companies, AMD just kills Intel.

You haven't been following the market. AMD just had to get a 386 million dollar subsidy from the German government (Saxony, more specifically).

Also, the only market where AMD is actually winning right now is the low-end one. Mid-range X2's generally lose to their respective C2D counterparts. Phenom quads offer less performance than the Q6600 (Intel's lowest-end quad-core), so they're only good for people who already have an AMD mobo.

AMD is in financial straits and it has little-to-none competition to Intel in the high-end or mid-range CPU market. If ATI hadn't come out with the 3870/3850, they would've been in serious trouble this holiday season (and the 8800GT 256MB is already looking to obsolete the 3850).

It's nice to have a Core 2, but not when they cost about twice as much as a nearly equivalent Athlon X2.

Already addressed. use Newegg for price comparisons and Tom's Hardware Charts for performance comparisons. AMD wins in the low-end (X2 4400 vs. E4300), loses in the midrange (X2 6000 vs. E6550/6750), and has nothing in the high-end (? vs. QX6850/QX9650). Phenom is shown to be worse in performance than the Q6600 in an article by AnandTech.

Besides that, having a clack speed only about 500 megahertz is really not all that much better.

Wrong.Oh, and for future reference, clock speeds aren't the only thing that matters here. Really now, you don't think that X2 is identical to C2D in architecture, now do you? Things like the IPC matter, but I don't wanna go there right now, this post is getting long enough anyway.

I always take the last of the mid-range processors when speccing out a computer, and I have yet to have AMD fail me. Intel, on the other hand, vastly separates their price range, and over complicates my life. Anger...

This is all opinions and personal experience, so I can't fault you here. Um, Intel having a wide price-range is confusing? Silly me, I thought having plenty of processors to choose from so you can get exactly what you need was a good thing.

As for the difference between Dual core and Quad, well... suffice to say there's not much there for me to judge. Quads don't run any better for me than duals, unless you're running a benchmark, and that usually depends more on the video card. But duals are much cheaper, so that's my choice there.

True enough, Quads often perform the same as Dual-cores in applications such as gaming and old programs that don't even have dual-core support. However, some applications show a nice gain from the switch. Here's a comparison of the same processor (6600) as a dual-core and a quad.

The Q6xxx series aren't 'real' quad-cores, they're actually two dual-cores attached together and use FSB to communicate, simulating a true quad-core. Phenom is made up of four separate processors on one die, yet it performs worse.

-----------------------------------------------------

Well, this post took a while. Let this be a lesson to all of you out there that decide to post technical opinions:

I'M WATCHING YOU.

[Gecko]

Agreed, most desktop system never need more than two processors/cores/psuedo-cores (aka hyperthreading), and few desktop applications can use more than that (I'm not sure if Windows XP can even handle more than 2, anyone have experience with this?), if they can even make proper use of two processors. Some applications even have problems with hyperthreading (thankfully, they are few in number). The quads are intended more for servers, where having a bunch of processors/cores is a good thing, and most server OSes and applications can make good use of that much multi-threading power.

Well, this is exactly what people were saying about dual-core when it was first imagined. Oh, it's too much, we don't need it. In year or two, octo-cores will be new and quad-cores will be 'standard' for most applications. Clock speeds can't get higher without sever wattage/heat problems, so all Inter/AMD can do is add more cores.

Sorry for posting again, but I really thought it would look tidier than adding more to my first post.

[VolkswagenFox]

I just choose the processor which gives the best performance which fits in my budget. I really don't have a processor preference. Well maybe I lean a little towards AMD, because the're the underdog and all.

[Muninn]

What the hell is AMD?

Arloest's Mad Doctrine

[Arloest]

What the hell is AMD?

Arloest's Mad Doctrine

Oh. Then I choose that.

[Foxhound]

What the hell is AMD?

Advanced Micro Devices. It's Intel's rival, basically.

[Softpaw]

Well, this is exactly what people were saying about dual-core when it was first imagined. Oh, it's too much, we don't need it. In year or two, octo-cores will be new and quad-cores will be 'standard' for most applications. Clock speeds can't get higher without sever wattage/heat problems, so all Inter/AMD can do is add more cores.

This is true, and I can't say I don't agree. But at the present time, quad-core processors are overkill for desktop users, and not worth the added expense. If you're building for economy and not purely for show, a good dual-core or dual-processor setup would be the better investment right now.

[Sage]

I like the processors that process things. Preferably ones that do it fast.

[KJ Fellie]

On a side note, I liked the commercials Intel had for their Pentiums, you know, the ones with the Blue Man Group doing goofy things and eventually ending up with a sign of some sort for whatever level processor was hot at the time.

[Doc Sigma]

Why not go for one of those new edible processors, like the Baconium?

[Holley]

Xe-on-toast? Celeryon? Red dye number 486?

The intel diet, become a thin client in 5 years ...

[Doc Sigma]

Xe-on-toast? Celeryon? Red dye number 486?

The intel diet, become a thin client in 5 years ...

If this were Fark, I would have sponsored you for a month of TotalFark as a result of that post, which is still making me laugh a minute later.

[Holyman83]

Xe-on-toast? Celeryon? Red dye number 486?

The intel diet, become a thin client in 5 years ...

LOL