• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ctach me up to speed

1) what is all this CORE stuff about, never heard of it until I saw a link for it somewhere. I checked the site and did some reading, but was only left confused.

2) I'm guessing looking around that amd lost its performance crown, when and how did that happen, last I checked intel had nothing.

3) whats the top end for each company and how do they compare?

I really have no idea how long i've been out of the loop, I think I remember the dual core athlons coming out, and something about smithfield.
 
core2 duo 6400 (2.13ghz) ($210) = amd fx62 (2.8ghz) ($800) Its a dual core, 65nm (overclocks easily to 3+ even some 3.5 ghz) and I'm guessing 25% more efficient for same ghz than a64 x2.

x6800 (2.93 ghz, around $1k) about 30-40% (sometimes more) faster when using cpu intensive stuff than fx62
 
Yes, its back the the P3 type chip, but even better. I am AMD fan (as you can see) but Core 2 is a great chip. I have 2 already.
 
What I/we tell everyone who asks: if you're building a new system, build a Core 2 Duo-based system. If you've already got a decent Skt 939-based system, don't feel bad about buying an X2 to put into it, now that they're finally affordable.

And the FX-62 is faster (though not by much) at almost everything, than an E6400, though it is slower at nearly everything, than an E6600. I don't say that to argue with lyssword, just to clarify a little.
 
So would this be a desktop banias(sp?)/dothan line?


On a more technical issue, what exactly make for this 30% advantage per clock, assuming this is a more advanced Pm design, whered the speed boost come from, those things were just barely slower clock for clock than k8 chips. I'm glad I sold my AMD stock when i did 🙂.
 
Originally posted by: myocardia
What I/we tell everyone who asks: if you're building a new system, build a Core 2 Duo-based system. If you've already got a decent Skt 939-based system, don't feel bad about buying an X2 to put into it, now that they're finally affordable.

And the FX-62 is faster (though not by much) at almost everything, than an E6400, though it is slower at nearly everything, than an E6600. I don't say that to argue with lyssword, just to clarify a little.

The big thing here is, that overclocked, a 6400@3.5 (which isn;t too hard) will wipe the floor with and FX-62 @ 3.2 (which is harder to hit)
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
The big thing here is, that overclocked, a 6400@3.5 (which isn;t too hard) will wipe the floor with and FX-62 @ 3.2 (which is harder to hit)
Thank you, Captain Obvious.😀
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
So would this be a desktop banias(sp?)/dothan line?


On a more technical issue, what exactly make for this 30% advantage per clock, assuming this is a more advanced Pm design, whered the speed boost come from, those things were just barely slower clock for clock than k8 chips. I'm glad I sold my AMD stock when i did 🙂.

I'm not quite sure of all of the technical part of it but...
The speed boost comes from a redesigned/redefined/slighty-new architecture. Maybe myocardia can explain more...he seems to know a bit more about the architecture designs used and so on.
 
Back
Top