AMD 3600 X2 vs Intel e4300

[tuan209]

Hi,

Im looking to build a 2nd computer mainly for photo editing using Photoshop. Will there be a big difference in speed between these two? With the price cut, the e4300 with a decent mobo will run me about 225 dollars while the 3600 with a decent mobo will be around 140. Its a difference of almost 80 bucks, and for that difference I could get another 2gig of ram. So, will the 3600 combo with 4gig be a better deal than the e4300 with 2gig of ram for my purpose?

 

[f4phantom2500]

What OS will you be running? Would you be willing to overclock? What kind of computer are you using now?

 

[tuan209]

i might switch over to vista, and im currently using an e6300. I might be willing to overclock, but my main concern is if I will notice the speed difference for my intended purpose. To be honest, I havent noticed much of a speed difference when I moved from the AMD XP cpus to these Conroes. I hardly game ever now.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: tuan209
i might switch over to vista, and im currently using an e6300. I might be willing to overclock, but my main concern is if I will notice the speed difference for my intended purpose. To be honest, I havent noticed much of a speed difference when I moved from the AMD XP cpus to these Conroes. I hardly game ever now.

I'm no Photoshop buff but if you are going to be using some complex filters and such then you *may* notice the difference. That said, the difference between a stock X2 3600+ and E4300 is only about 20% or so, so it's not like a huge margin. If you are willing to overclock then the E4300 will shine, as 3GHz is almost guaranteed. The X2 3600+ is not a bad overclocker also, you should get at least 2.8GHz out of it.

So, for an $80 difference, if you won't be overclocking I'd stick with the X2 3600+ if you don't mind slightly longer render times. If you will be overclocking then the margin between the two chips grows and I would give the nod to the E4300.

 

[hans007]

well i think an e4300 is about equivalent to a x2 4200 or 4400 or so. so based on that, it all really just depends on how much $80 is worth toyou.

 

[f4phantom2500]

I would get the e4300 because if something happens to your e6300 (god forbid), then at least you'd have a chip you could throw in it. Honestly, though, if you didn't notice the difference from AXP CPU's to a C2D, you'd do fine with the 3600.

 

[Falloutboy]

3600 it really is a great bang for buck right now

 

[Nemesis 1]

How many of you guys gave advice to buy netburst cpu's?

Why would you give advice to buy AMD .

Never did AMD have this large of performance differances over netburst. Power consumption advantage is about equal. To the advantage AMD had over netburst.

Buy intel C2D but wait a little longer if possiable. Prices are going down.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
How many of you guys gave advice to buy netburst cpu's?

Why would you give advice to buy AMD .

Never did AMD have this large of performance differances over netburst. Power consumption advantage is about equal. To the advantage AMD had over netburst.

Buy intel C2D but wait a little longer if possiable. Prices are going down.

Umm... maybe because, even after pricecuts, the X2 3600+ will still be significantly cheaper than an E4300?!

I made a case for both choices, it's really not as cut and dry as you claim.

 

[rmed64]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
How many of you guys gave advice to buy netburst cpu's?

Why would you give advice to buy AMD .

Never did AMD have this large of performance differances over netburst. Power consumption advantage is about equal. To the advantage AMD had over netburst.

Buy intel C2D but wait a little longer if possiable. Prices are going down.

You should always look for the best bang for the buck for performance, and the X2 3600 brisbane delivers.

Netburst CPUs were never great bang for the buck, they ran hot, and comparitively, the Athlon 64s ran circles around them. A 2.2ghz Athlon 64 was still faster than a 3.2ghz P4. Core 2 Duo is faster than Athlon 64, but clock for clock, it is not to that extent.

And I dont understand the fanboys. I will buy whatever is best at a certain price point, whether it is Intel or AMD. Same with ATI/AMD and Nvidia.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
How many of you guys gave advice to buy netburst cpu's?

Why would you give advice to buy AMD .

Never did AMD have this large of performance differances over netburst. Power consumption advantage is about equal. To the advantage AMD had over netburst.

Buy intel C2D but wait a little longer if possiable. Prices are going down.

uh because netburst CPUS were slower AND cost more.


the amd cpus now, some of them are slower. but they are also cheaper.

 

[tuan209]

Guys,

Thanks for all of the replies! I think for a 2nd rig, I might just pick up the AMD. 80 bucks isnt a big deal to me, but I do like buying best bang for the buck things. In all honesty, I havent noticed a huge increase in cpu speed in the last 10 years for my line of work. I now mainly use the computer to surf and photo editing.

 

[rudder]

good choice... go with the extra ram. I game on my E6300 system and do a lot of photoshop stuff on my skt 939 X2 3800+ system. Both have 2 gigs of ram and I am hard pressed to tell speed differences. The AMD may take a little longer to apply some filters... but we are not talking a big difference.