Core 2 Duo or AMD X2?

[hermanocabral]

Im currently building 3 new workstatins for my company developers (mainly .net development with visual studio) and im considering buynig a c2d system, due to its current price.

My main doubt is if the 2mb cache procs. like E6400 are really good or if i shoulb just buy an AMD X2.


Since the main use of those systems will be Office, Internet, .Net development with Visual Studio, etc, i was thingking about having a c2d e6400, 2gb ddr2 533, 200gb hd 7200.10, cheap pci-e video card, a cd/dvd reader and a 17" lcd monitor. the mobo i have not decided yet, but it should be a decent mobo, but i have no need for sli, overclocking or insane sound options.

What you guys think?

 

[CurseTheSky]

Your setup will work just fine for what you need to do with it.

Core 2 Duos are excellent, powerful processors. However, a lot of their fame comes from their excellent overclocking capabilities. Depending on where you shop, you might be able to get a better deal by going with AMD.

AMD? Yep, AMD. One look at my signature and you'll know I'm not a die-hard, forever-will-be AMD fan. However, after doing a bit of research, I've found that at STOCK CLOCK SPEEDS, the Core 2 Duo E6400 and AMD X2 5200+ are very close in performance. Though it doesn't have the 5200+ (or the E6300...), you can compare the E6400 to the 5000+ in this chart from Tom's Hardware. In most benchmarks, you should see the two very close in performance.

That doesn't mean you should buy AMD; that just means that you should consider it and check the prices from your retailer. Both processors will perform very well on a stock speed office machine.

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: CurseTheSky
Your setup will work just fine for what you need to do with it.

Core 2 Duos are excellent, powerful processors. However, a lot of their fame comes from their excellent overclocking capabilities. Depending on where you shop, you might be able to get a better deal by going with AMD.

AMD? Yep, AMD. One look at my signature and you'll know I'm not a die-hard, forever-will-be AMD fan. However, after doing a bit of research, I've found that at STOCK CLOCK SPEEDS, the Core 2 Duo E6400 and AMD X2 5200+ are very close in performance. Though it doesn't have the 5200+ (or the E6300...), you can compare the E6400 to the 5000+ in this chart from Tom's Hardware. In most benchmarks, you should see the two very close in performance.

That doesn't mean you should buy AMD; that just means that you should consider it and check the prices from your retailer. Both processors will perform very well on a stock speed office machine.

Pretty much what CurseTheSky said is on the spot

 

[jkresh]

Depending on which end of the spectrum the machines are on (ie is word/web main or is .Net main) I would say go with intel as you will be able to move to quad cores for <$300 sometime in the 3rd quarter which can be useful depending on the size of the applications you are building. Also If you have the budget some relatively inexpensive 20inch monitors will be a big upgrade for developers as the extra real estate over a 17inch is really useful when working with visual studio in my experience (1600x1024 is a big upgrade over 1024x678 or even 1280x1024).

 

[Sunner]

Frankly, if those are for developers, I'd try to squeeze a 19 or 20 inch monitor in there, provided it can handle 1600x1200.
In my experience, developers love high res monitors just as much as sysadmins do.

 

[superbooga]

Given the applications you are using, I would definitely go with the Core 2 Duo. The X2 does well in scientific and video encoding applications, but loses by a larger margin for everything else.

 

[jpeyton]

Just buy 3 of these for your company and call it a day. Nice large 19" LCD, 1 year warranty, and Vista included.

 

[13Gigatons]

Comparing a x2 at 2.6 GHz to a C2D at 3.6 GHz you don't really notice the difference until you do something like encode video or compress a really large file.

For most people the x2 is powerful enough. Just keep in mind that in six months both AMD and Intel will be slugging it out with quad core cpu's.

 

[Roguestar]

I thought we saw the end of these threads four months ago.
http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html
AMD is better bang for buck at much lower prices, but in mid and high end, Core 2 Duo will win hands down.

 

[chizow]

I'd go with the larger panels as others mentioned, in fact, I'd say get 'em 2. If they're doing a lot of multi-tasking in general office apps, the X2 and C2D should both be overkill, but I'd argue they'd get more done faster on a cheaper X2 with 2 LCDs than on a faster C2D with 1 LCD.

 

[Boyo]

I'd stick with the C2D. I think you'll get more bang for your buck. And try giving those poor people something bigger than a 17" screen to look at all day.

 

[bob4432]

for a m/b i would go with a intel board, as in intel brand, not just the chipset. their boards seem to be the best in reliability but do limit the bios o/c options, which doesn't seem to be a big deal.

also, like others have stated, get them larger than a 17" - do something with at least 1680x1050 or higher resolution

 

[Zolty]

C2D at stock speeds compares to the value of the X2 series, the difference being the ease of over clocking on the C2D line. If you can afford a C2D it is a better value than the X2.

 

[bob4432]

from what i have seen in bechmarks my x2 @ 2.5GHz ~ = a 6300-6400, so my max stable o/c @ stock V = c2d at total stock, and i have seen some good o/c with the low end c2ds @ stock V, plus the 4300 and 4400s are begging for o/cing too.