plz tell me what intel processor is better than

[Extelleron]

The short answer to this is that every Intel quad-core CPU is better than any AMD Phenom in every scenario imaginable (other than synthetic memory benchmarks). The X4 9950 BE is pretty much equal to the Q6600 in stock performance, but overclock the two and there is no comparison. And the Q6600 is significantly cheaper.

As for Intel's dual-cores.... in multi-threaded benches the Phenom 9500 will be (slightly) faster than a fast dual like the E8xxx series, but not by as much as you might think. I suspect the E8600 will come awful close to the 9500's performance even in apps that make use of 4 cores. In apps that don't make use of 4 cores... there will be no comparison.

I've been a big AMD fan and I still prefer their processors, but I'm not going to constantly settle for less supporting a company. I bought an AMD Phenom and it was alright, but not good for my purpose (gaming). And trying to overclock it is simply a PITA, especially since the motherboards are not mature and the low-end boards have trouble running some of the CPUs because of crappy PWM's / the high power consumption of Phenom CPUs. If my motherboard had been solid and the prices of Phenoms lower, I might have upgraded to a 9850 / 9950, but that's just not the case. With Phenom, you can't just go out and buy an $80 board and be fine like you can with Intel. You need a $150-200 790FX board to run a Phenom CPU well, and that would kill any price advantage even if AMD had one. But they don't, because Phenom 9850 / 9950 cost more than the Q6600 yet they are slower.

My overclocked E8400 outperforms my Phenom 9500 oc'd across the board, even in Cinebench which makes use of 4 threads. And now I can use 64-bit Vista, which just makes the margin even larger. B2 Phenoms will not overclock well in 64-bit Vista for some reason. Plus you have to constantly worry about disabling the TLB patch before you do anything.

 

[Munky]

A lot of misinformed people out there... First of all, the e2xxx chips suck at games, unless you OC them to hell, and even then they're no match for a C2D with more cache. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily pick an e2xxx over a similarly priced AMD X2 for gaming.

Secondly, very few games benefit from quad cores, so more cores is not better. In fact, at a high enough resolution like 1920x1200 your performance is basically determined by your video card, so the cpu makes little difference at all.

And thirdly, there ARE cases where a higher clocked X2 is faster than a Phenom. It's not like Phenom significantly boosts the IPC throughput over a K8, unlike the C2D architecture.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: munky
A lot of misinformed people out there... First of all, the e2xxx chips suck at games, unless you OC them to hell, and even then they're no match for a C2D with more cache. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily pick an e2xxx over a similarly priced AMD X2 for gaming.

Secondly, very few games benefit from quad cores, so more cores is not better. In fact, at a high enough resolution like 1920x1200 your performance is basically determined by your video card, so the cpu makes little difference at all.

And thirdly, there ARE cases where a higher clocked X2 is faster than a Phenom. It's not like Phenom significantly boosts the IPC throughput over a K8, unlike the C2D architecture.

The E2xxx chips are not nearly as good as the full-fledged C2D chips when it comes to gaming, but they are still much faster per clock than the X2's.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-shootout_4.html#sect0

Considering that you can't rely on even the G2 Brisbanes to get much beyond 3.1-3.2GHz, the E2xxx chips are still a much better option.

If you have a high-end video card, CPU certainly does make a difference in modern games. Going from Phenom -> E8400 I saw this very clearly. Min framerates almost doubled and average framerates greatly improved as well.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: munky
A lot of misinformed people out there... First of all, the e2xxx chips suck at games, unless you OC them to hell, and even then they're no match for a C2D with more cache. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily pick an e2xxx over a similarly priced AMD X2 for gaming.

Secondly, very few games benefit from quad cores, so more cores is not better. In fact, at a high enough resolution like 1920x1200 your performance is basically determined by your video card, so the cpu makes little difference at all.

And thirdly, there ARE cases where a higher clocked X2 is faster than a Phenom. It's not like Phenom significantly boosts the IPC throughput over a K8, unlike the C2D architecture.

The E2xxx chips are not nearly as good as the full-fledged C2D chips when it comes to gaming, but they are still much faster per clock than the X2's.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...-shootout_4.html#sect0

Considering that you can't rely on even the G2 Brisbanes to get much beyond 3.1-3.2GHz, the E2xxx chips are still a much better option.

If you have a high-end video card, CPU certainly does make a difference in modern games. Going from Phenom -> E8400 I saw this very clearly. Min framerates almost doubled and average framerates greatly improved as well.

the E2xxx are not much faster than X2's. they'll trade blows, win some and loose some but much faster, don't think so. A CD2 is much faster, that's one bada$$ cpu

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: munky
A lot of misinformed people out there... First of all, the e2xxx chips suck at games, unless you OC them to hell, and even then they're no match for a C2D with more cache. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily pick an e2xxx over a similarly priced AMD X2 for gaming.

Secondly, very few games benefit from quad cores, so more cores is not better. In fact, at a high enough resolution like 1920x1200 your performance is basically determined by your video card, so the cpu makes little difference at all.

And thirdly, there ARE cases where a higher clocked X2 is faster than a Phenom. It's not like Phenom significantly boosts the IPC throughput over a K8, unlike the C2D architecture.

Sure, an E8400 @ 4GHz easily beats a E2180 @ 3GHz, but an E2180 @ 3GHz is still some 10% faster than an X2 @ 3GHz.

If an E2x00 chip 'sucks' for gaming, and its faster than an X2 per clock, then what does that make the X2?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: munky
A lot of misinformed people out there... First of all, the e2xxx chips suck at games, unless you OC them to hell, and even then they're no match for a C2D with more cache. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily pick an e2xxx over a similarly priced AMD X2 for gaming.

Secondly, very few games benefit from quad cores, so more cores is not better. In fact, at a high enough resolution like 1920x1200 your performance is basically determined by your video card, so the cpu makes little difference at all.

And thirdly, there ARE cases where a higher clocked X2 is faster than a Phenom. It's not like Phenom significantly boosts the IPC throughput over a K8, unlike the C2D architecture.

Sure, an E8400 @ 4GHz easily beats a E2180 @ 3GHz, but an E2180 @ 3GHz is still some 10% faster than an X2 @ 3GHz.

If an E2x00 chip 'sucks' for gaming, and its faster than an X2 per clock, then what does that make the X2?

It makes the X2's a reasonable option for someone on a budget who doesn't OC, since the X2's are clocked higher by default.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: munky
A lot of misinformed people out there... First of all, the e2xxx chips suck at games, unless you OC them to hell, and even then they're no match for a C2D with more cache. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily pick an e2xxx over a similarly priced AMD X2 for gaming.

Secondly, very few games benefit from quad cores, so more cores is not better. In fact, at a high enough resolution like 1920x1200 your performance is basically determined by your video card, so the cpu makes little difference at all.

And thirdly, there ARE cases where a higher clocked X2 is faster than a Phenom. It's not like Phenom significantly boosts the IPC throughput over a K8, unlike the C2D architecture.

Sure, an E8400 @ 4GHz easily beats a E2180 @ 3GHz, but an E2180 @ 3GHz is still some 10% faster than an X2 @ 3GHz.

If an E2x00 chip 'sucks' for gaming, and its faster than an X2 per clock, then what does that make the X2?

It makes the X2's a reasonable option for someone on a budget who doesn't OC, since the X2's are clocked higher by default.

not higher per dollar... but yes, if your budget calls for a 50$ CPU and no overclock, then X2 is the way to go.

If you want something faster then a midrange from 2 years ago... for example, if you want to play games or not wait forever for tasts to be done, then you should get an intel, one that is at least 100$

Originally posted by: Mloot
I'm quite happy with the Ph9500 that I bought off of CL for $90 a month or so ago.

Sweet deal, just because they suck at full price people get dissatisfied with their purchase and end up selling them for a fraction of their worth. A quad core for 90? Sure, load me up, I have a fileserver and some family members still running an X2 on AM2 boards... they could use this.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: munky
It makes the X2's a reasonable option for someone on a budget who doesn't OC, since the X2's are clocked higher by default.

Fair enough, and I'd agree, X2s are definitely a viable alternative for people who don't overclock. I'm still not sure how that makes the E21x0 series 'suck' for gaming though. Sure, the small L2 means it can't compare with higher end Core 2 CPUs, everybody knows that. Well, news flash - neither can the X2.

It just amuses me the double standards some people employ. A cheap X2 that delivers reasonable gaming performance is considered a good option, but a similarly performing E21x0 'sucks' just because it can't compare to full blown C2D.

 

[aigomorla]

how about asking an owner who had both?

isnt that the easiest way to go about it?

Ummm... let me put it this way.

Fugger from XS couldnt have said it any simplar.

Phenom + BS = smooth



No, sorry, if your going to stand up for AMD, stand up for them on what is true. There processors are green, and 65W Quad is dayam sexy.

For performance, Please.

Smoother? Talk to persephone or freya, she'll show you what smooth is. Erinyes will look extremely SAD once my other 2 rigs have there legs out.

You want a performance machine, you get intel. Thats the end of it. There is no arguement no discussion. Yorkfield will spank the phenom on ANY benchmark and OVERClocking.

You grab the phenom because you didnt want to overclock, you wanted somethign that drew very little power, and you wanted to support the underdog.

Your grab the intel, if your building your dream machine, want the fastest hardware out there, love to overclock.


And keep note next gen intel, Neha, @ stock 2.93ghz = my Yorkfield Quadcore @ 3.6ghz.

Sorry, AMD is gonna get WORKED becaues they have no processor EVEN OVERCLOCKED that can = that.

I feel really bad for them.

 

[taltamir]

yes, the phenom takes 20+% longer to compress a file or encode a video or give FPS in a game... but it compressess it SMOOTHER... [/sarcasm]

Last I checked slow =! smooth.

And none of those are "artificial tests"...

 

[harpoon84]

In all seriousness, I've seen a lot of Phenom users claim their systems are 'snappier' than a C2Q system, but the vast majority of them don't even own a C2Q, so I wonder how they came to those conclusions.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Right now Intel is better performer. But how much differance is there really. For home users. BUY the cheapest good PC you can . That includes AMD.

Befor C2D AMD x2 was king of heaven and all the angles sang praises to AMD. Than Intel C2D came onto the scene and the angles sang a new song.

That doesn't mean AMD isn't good its very good. Its just the angels are singing a differant song now.

Buy what YOU want . Don't buy on the say so of others . If your happy thats all that matters . Is it not?