POLL: AMD X2 vs. Intel C2D.........snappiness!

[daveybrat]

All things being equal on a modern platform, which processor feels snappier than the other? Intel Core2Duo or AMD X2 processors?

Which processor "feels" faster in day to day applications? (We all know C2D is truly faster)

 

[ctk1981]

My rig before this was an socket 939, DDR1, 3800+ overclocked to 2.5Ghz with the memory running at 500mhz. This system would fly in day to day tasks and help up fairly well in gaming. Then I purchased all the upgrade parts for an intel core 2 duo. First I installed the 8800GTS 640MB OC from BFG to see how the system would respond to it. I believe initially it scored a high 7000 in 3dmark06. Then I upgraded to the Intel core 2.....E6750 overclocked to 3.4Ghz, 1066mhz DDRII.....it scores a high 11 low 12. Although in day to day tasks I cannot tell a difference really. When doing backups of DVD's I would probably have to use a stopwatch or pay attention to the time to say one or the other is faster...Im sure the intel is, but like I said...overall day to day operations I cannot tell the difference between the 3.4Ghz C2D and the 2.5Ghz Athlon 64 I had.

 

[Markfw]

I voted X2, but C2D kills in CPU intensive apps. Example. My X2 4400@2.4 is half the speed of my E6300@3.2 in F@H, and my quads are 4times as fast @ 3.2

But for everyday work, I use my X2 4400 (non-cpu intensive apps, but 32 of them at a time or more...)

 

[lopri]

I'd say,

1. 4MB L2 Conroe > 1MB L2 Socket 939 X2 (DDR) > 2MB L2 Allendale > Socket AM2 X2 (DDR2)

The latest Windsor stepping (F3) made the 'snappiness' very close to that of Toledo / San Diego, but it's still not as good, IMO. And with the slow advancement of AMD's 65nm, Brisbane is probably a lot worse (both the L2 and the IMC). Toledo / San Diego is still the best performing K8, clock for clock. Thanks to excellent prefetching as well as out-of-order execution, 4MB L2 Conroe is clearly #1 when it comes to snappiness. Another thing I felt, but haven't seen reported elsewhere, is that even among the same 2MB L2 Allendale CPUs, the ones with half-disabled L2 (originally produced with full 4MB L2) feels snappier than the ones designed w/ 2MB L2. (e.g. E6400 vs E4500) I'm saying this but it's probably a psychological thing and don't have any proof whatsoever.

When it comes to AMD vs Intel, AM2 definitely feels sluggish compared to Core 2 even with its on-die memory controller. Socket 939 Opteron with low latency DDR, however, is a different story and feels just as snappy as Core 2 and snappier than Pentium E21x0 series from my experience. I've been saying this many times but the size of L2 matters on AMD platform, not to mention Intel platform (on which the difference is HUGE). I would go as far as to say that for the snappiest every day computing experience with Core 2 depends on:

1. 1. Size of L2
   2. Strap / Chipset latency
   3. Clock frequency
   4. Memory frequency / timings
   5. FSB

Obviously this is under the assumption that the CPUs compared are in a same ball park. (not something like E4300 @3.60GHz vs E6420 @2.13GHz) And IMHO, of course.

 

[brainhulk]

snappy... ambiguous to say the least however i get the gist.

I have an opteron 185 clocked to 2.9 on dfi 939 nf4 compared
to c2quad clocked to 3.2 on abit ip35pro. both using 8800ultra

windows boot time, overall response and browsing: can't really tell.

cpu intensive tasks (dvix encoding) and games: definitely c2quad

my divx encoding time was cut from ~40 minutes for a 30min episode to ~7 minutes
on the quad.

wow went from ~25fps in high traffic areas to solid 70fps.

heat wise i actually think the opteron put out more heat.<--cant figure that out

 

[Cookie Monster]

We all know core2 duos if not quads are MUCH better than X2s when it comes to CPU intensive apps. Buti think the OP is asking about the general "feel" of the cpus for day to day apps like email, internet, opening files etc.

 

[bfdd]

I never owned an AMD64 or X2, had a P4 2.8ghz(got it free w/ mobo and ram so yay me) and moving to my C2D was a HUGE difference. My brother upgraded from an x2 3800 to a E4300 and he said it felt faster right off the start even before we oc'd it.

 

[terentenet]

I voted for the AMD X2.
Almost one year ago I had both systems for a couple of days, then donated the X2 machine to my dad; 939 X2 4800+ with 2Gb RAM (ocz platinum rev2), 7900GTX SLI GPUs on DFI Lanparty Nf4 SLI
New machine was X6800, 2Gb DDR2 (corsair), 8800GTX SLI GPUs on ASUS P5N32 SLI SE Deluxe board (worst board I ever had)

I still remember the feeling after I first installed XP on the X6800 machine, it felt slower compared to the X2. I thought it was the drivers so I got the latest updates, BIOS updates, everything, it didn't change.

Right clicking the desktop on the X2 brought out the menu faster than on the X6800 machine. IE opened faster, etc.
I think it has something to do with the integrated memory controller on the X2 that it feels snappier.

Performance wise, X6800 killed the X2 4800. I've tested both with the 8800GTX SLI; I don't remember the numbers, but the X6800 lead was solid.

So; If you want a snappier windows, go for X2.
If you want performance, go C2D.

 

[Zenoth]

I think that snappiness comes from HDD's rather than the CPU's. I might be wrong, of course.

 

[HopJokey]

Yea I think "snappiness" comes from the I/O subsystem of your computer.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
I think that snappiness comes from HDD's rather than the CPU's. I might be wrong, of course.

Good point. It would be interesting to see a snappiness review in addition to the usual performance reviews. It could cover what's attributable to a snappy pc - cpu speed/# cores, hd responsiveness/fragmentation, video speed/ram and amount of ram. I'm writing this on my current 'everyday' pc - msi diamond+, 4400x2 939, 7600gt, raptor150, 2gb ram, w2k - which seems pretty snappy.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: HopJokey
Yea I think "snappiness" comes from the I/O subsystem of your computer.

I think it can come from both that and the memory system on the computer. Memory in terms of its speed (normally how fast it can communicate with the CPU), and latency.

Think due to the IMC where it results in a very low latency that gives a very snappy feel to the end user.

They should do some sort of a review on this, because for a day to day usage PC for general use (email, surfing, filing, MS word etc), i would prefer hardware that would give me more "snappiness" then what the benchmarks are telling me.

 

[roorooroo]

Everyday use minimal difference really but when it comes to gaming C2D is much 'snappier' in my experience.

 

[perdomot]

Comparing my E4400 @ 3ghz vs X2 3800+ @2Ghz, the X2 definately feels faster although when I encode video, its the E4400 all the way. According to Toms cpu charts, a 3ghx X2 is not that far behind an E6750 chip in the benchmarks so its possible the IMC does make it feel faster. Even with a Raptor as my C drive on the C2D, the X2 seems to open folders/apps quicker.

 

[zach0624]

I have a 5600+ @ 3.15 and a e4500@ 3.3 and they both feel about the same, they both have comparable mobos, same hd, ram, and vid. The C2D does feel a bit snappier (even at 3ghz) however when you switch tasks or minimize a game to check your email but it seems slower booting up. Voted for the C2D since we aren't talking about boot times.

 

[Cheex]

Core 2 all the way (not really a fanboy here).

 

[IEC]

It depends on whether you're doing something dependent on low-latency access or not... if that's the case, X2 sometimes "feels" faster. For everyday usage I can't really tell. (Use C2D for reference.)

 

[Dainas]

Snappiness has allot more to do with how piggish the software is than the cpu speed (granted its over 2GHZ). Honestly, my overclocked Q6600 in Vista x64 ties with my X2 running windows XP.


The fastest computer I own, as in the most instantaneous when starting up and opening programs, and doing common commands; Is a 6 year old Digital Audio G4 powermac with a Dual 1.8ghz 7447a upgrade, 1.5GB of cas2 PC133 and a flashed BFG 7800GS OC. It runs PPC OSX 10.4.10, which even before caching everything still seems faster than Vista can muster. I've played around with friends Core 2 duo iMacs that had ram a plenty, and they honestly felt laggier if anything. They'd eat my mac alive naturally in cpu benchmarks though. Code vector benchmarks (ones that test Altivec and SSE) being the only thing a high mhz G4 could hold its own per core in todays CPU world.

 

[CP5670]

There isn't much difference in the overall responsiveness of basic programs as long as Windows is optimized accordingly (animations/effects disabled, minimal background processes, etc.), at least with XP. I have gone between a 3ghz 146, 2.8ghz 165 and 3.6ghz E6750 without noticing any difference at all in standard Windows programs. Even my four year old laptop with a 1.7ghz single core Pentium M is comparable, maybe just loading programs a bit more slowly than the others.

 

[nyker96]

I had a single core AMD sempy before this E21xx upgrade, I had to say after both overclocked, E21xx is snappier, quicker in almost all things. Except disk intensive stuff which is entirely HD speed. But vid/audio encoding, it's about 2-3x faster that's very noticeable of course. Other things less noticeable but I can feel it's faster on all apps.

 

[jonmcc33]

Went from a Intel Pentium 4 2.8C to a Opteron 165 and noticed a difference. Got a Core 2 Duo 6400 and it's OC'ed to 3GHz and there's a giant difference. Dropped about 15-20 minutes off of my movie encoding times.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: HopJokey
Yea I think "snappiness" comes from the I/O subsystem of your computer.

I think it can come from both that and the memory system on the computer. Memory in terms of its speed (normally how fast it can communicate with the CPU), and latency.

Think due to the IMC where it results in a very low latency that gives a very snappy feel to the end user.

They should do some sort of a review on this, because for a day to day usage PC for general use (email, surfing, filing, MS word etc), i would prefer hardware that would give me more "snappiness" then what the benchmarks are telling me.

I can tell you right now that AMDX2 3800+, 2GB RAM and a fast HDD is very NOT snappy for Vista.

(another vote that the majority of a computer's snappiness depends on the OS first)

 

[Zap]

I don't think most people can really tell a difference in a double blind test if both were "equivalent" systems (whatever that means).