Is This True?

[Stump1000]

I'm picking my processor out for my new machine, and just read this on our local forum.

"For gaming systems...
ECU Intel core 2 duo e6600 or better. The e6600 comes with a 4mb cache, very important. AMD X2 64's have much less cache and processing power, the low end core2's destroy AMD's best at the moment."


Tom's Hardware shows the AMD X2 6000+ to have about the same performance as the Intel Core Duo e6600. They are both priced the same also. Any answers on this would help greatly.

 

[jkresh]

amd's prices have dropped substantially and the 6000+ is now priced reasonably considering performance, so if you are on the moderate/low end of the scale (less then e6700 or realy not quad core) and you dont care about overclocking amd is fine, once you take overclocking into account the fact that hte core 2's tend to oc very high gives them a significant advantage.

 

[Tsuwamono]

ok 1. Low end intels get RAPED by AMD 2. AMD 6000 x2 beats the E6600 and competes with the E6700 at only 240$ while the E6700 is something retarded like 4-500$ last time i checked correct me if im wrong 3. AMD is a good long term choice as Barcelona will be out on the AM2+ socket which is AM2 with an HT upgrade but its backwards compatible.

I would suggest AMD unless you plan on buying a rig every 6 months to say you have the best of the best. AMD IMO is the best choice for long term performance and stability. For first time builders its also much easier to work with.

The only problem with AMD is there tends to be alot of Intel fanboys out there(not saying there arent AMD ones too) that flame just about anyone who runs AMD or even mentions AMD without adding "Suckzors" to the end.

 

[themisfit610]

Well, that's all pretty much true, but there's nothing inherently easier to work with when you have an AMD system. Intel and AMD systems are both very easy to build.

If you encode a lot of video (I do) then Intel is the only way to go, the Core 2 Duo is ridiculously fast at encoding, especially when you overclock the snot out of it!

On the other hand, a lot of people (like myself) have 939 systems from 1-2 years ago, and a cheap X2 is a fantastic upgrade. I just got a $90 3800+ X2 to replace my 3500+ single core, and the difference is significant!

~MiSfit

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Stump1000
The e6600 comes with a 4mb cache, very important.

It does, but that isn't hugely important.

AMD X2 64's have much less cache

True enough, but not in and of itself very meaningful.

and processing power

How does one quantify this? Fanboyism.

the low end core2's destroy AMD's best at the moment."

This has never been true. The low end Core 2 E6300 (bottom of the line at launch) did in fact best nearly all of Intel's Netburst products, and faired quite well against AMD's lineup.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Every benchmark I've seen shows c2d walking all over the best amd chips in everything except memory bandwidth. I went from an opty 175 to my current set up two weeks ago and I'm pretty happy with it. There is no doubt that the c2d is faster and if you oc then it just widens the margin. It is true that amd prices have fallen recently as has intels so right now you can get some pretty good deals either way you go so look around. I've been an amd fanboy for quite a number of years and at one time I was pretty sure that I wouldn't go back to intel but here I am. I have 3 other amd machines in the house so amd has a 3:1 ratio where I'm at. Either system would serve you well but I see the lga 775 as having a better upgrade path but I could be wrong. Everytime amd has come out with something new since ss7 it has required a new socket to take full advantage of it.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Everytime amd has come out with something new since ss7 it has required a new socket to take full advantage of it.

You did really well, right up until this sentence. So, when you buy a new AMD processor, you're forced to buy a new motherboard, because it's got a different socket (excluding the what, 3 years that 939 was around). Okay, you're right. [sarcasm]How exactly is that different from having to replace Intel motherboards quarterly, because the chipset has changed? [/sarcasm]

 

[Tsuwamono]

well we can all see this is going to turn into a flame fest. This is the problem with mentioning AMD in a post or in your build specs.

 

[Captante]

To simplify the issue ... if you are looking at low/mid-range & don't plan on overclocking then AMD still offers very competitive choices.

If you are after high-end and/or do plan on overclocking then C2D is by far a better bet.

 

[Nathelion]

Precisely. Are we all happy now? Btw, there's a place for flamefests. It's called "off topic". There's a link to it to the above and to the left of this post.