What CPU is better? Comparing C2D, AM2

[Highbuzz]

Hello, I'm pretty knowledgable when it comes to computer, not heavily but I do know more than the average guy... A lot more probably.

Anyways, I have no made a computer purchase since Socket 939 CPUs were really powerful. Now, obviously, are C2D and AM2. The thing is though, I always heard C2D were better performance wise now, reverse of what it was when 939 and Pentiums were out.

Now my friend is getting a budget gaming PC and I am helping with picking out the parts. He heavily stands by bigger GHz means better. While I do know they do factor, they are not all powerful like he claims, right? FBS, the cache, and the core type matter as well.

But I have no kept up with hardware (sadly, I meant to, but other things were more important) and I've forgotten what totally makes a CPU the best one. But I still remember reading tons of benchmarks that said C2D > AM2. But like I said, my friend is GHz > all. So I bring you these 2 CPUs I'm trying to decide between...

He picked this AM2: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819105183
I picked this C2D: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115032

He said since his AM2 had more GHz, it was better. Is he right, is it better? If he is right, how so? Am I right, and if I am, how so? How do I explain to him how it's better?

I hope one of you can help!

 

[Acanthus]

The core 2 duo is faster than that X2 across the board.

Also the core 2 series is very easy to overclock, if you do some research on motherboards, you can get a very very powerful C2D setup for under $200 for CPU + Mobo.

 

[Highbuzz]

How and why, though? I thought C2D was faster, but my friend won't take my word for it. He wants proof, so I want to give him some. Or at least reasoning, but I can't really explain it too well when I don't have a total clue on how much a cache, FBS, and core type makes an impact.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Highbuzz
How and why, though? I thought C2D was faster, but my friend won't take my word for it. He wants proof, so I want to give him some. Or at least reasoning, but I can't really explain it too well when I don't have a total clue on how much a cache, FBS, and core type makes an impact.

It's a superior architecture.

The core does more work per clock than the X2, so it takes a much faster X2 to compare to a Core 2 based processor. (much like in the past, the X2 slaughtered the Pentium 4 in work done per clock)

There are CPU comparison charts at tomshardware.com if you want to directly compare processors. Theres literally no reason to buy an AMD cpu right now unless you can get an insane deal and cant afford the price bump to C2D.

 

[Highbuzz]

Thanks, I'll show him your posts and if I can find good enough comparisons at Tom's Hardware, those too.

Out of curiousity though, is there an element of a CPU that makes it superior? Or the combination of many elements?

 

[superstition]

Not exactly no reason. There are some power consumption scenarios for server/rendering rooms where AMD's chips, at least until very recently, hold/held an edge. But, for the desktop, Intel's stuff is currently the way to go.

The integrated memory controller/hypertransport technology AMD has is superior to Intel's technology in some respects, but it also has its own limitations.

 

[superstition]

"Out of curiousity though, is there an element of a CPU that makes it superior? Or the combination of many elements?"

Look at the real world benchmarks provided by several reputable review sites and compare them to the amount of power the CPU requires. The most fundamental measure of CPU design is work per watt. However, some people don't care as much about that as they do about maximum performance, so they don't even have to take power consumption into consideration, just the benchmark results. Also factoring into the equation, unless you're rich, is the initial cost of the processor and the cost of its supporting parts and their available options. For instance, Intel's 45 nm Harpertown server chips require expensive motherboards and expensive parity RAM, making them less of a bargain for the desktop.

 

[Acanthus]

Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 $83 shipped
Abit IP35-E Motherboard $106 shipped, $30 MIR available $76 shipped

That motherboard and CPU combination will get you to 3.0ghz with the stock cooler, there is no AMD solution that can match that speed for anywhere near that price.

 

[Mondoman]

Originally posted by: Highbuzz
...how much a cache, FBS, and core type makes an impact.

To a first approximation, cache and FSB make little difference -- the key is the core design. AMD's recent designs have integrated the memory controller in the CPU, which gives some advantages in accessing RAM. Another way of addressing this issue is to boost the cache size, which is what Intel has done.

 

[KhadgarTW]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 $83 shipped
Abit IP35-E Motherboard $106 shipped, $30 MIR available $76 shipped

That motherboard and CPU combination will get you to 3.0ghz with the stock cooler, there is no AMD solution that can match that speed for anywhere near that price.

A small correction, There is no AMD dual core solution that can match that speed regardless what price it is

 

[Nathelion]

true. The quads could though... but if you're bumping the price that much, the intel quads are still better:/

 

[bryanW1995]

well, technically the 6400+ is 3.2 ghz, but who's counting?

I know that what you mean is that there's no amd cpu that can match that PERFORMANCE regardless of price, but you're probably wrong there, too. The 6400+ starts at 3.2, will usually go to 3.4 or 3.5, and should outperform a pentium dual core at 3.0 in most benchmarks. Unfortunately for the amd, there is not much of an upgrade path for them since phenum still completely sucks, while with the intel mobo/chip you could go the route suggested by acanthus and then buy a quad in 12/18 mos that would probably outperform the latest and greatest that amd had to offer. Also, the pentium E isn't nearly as much of a space heater an x2, espcially an x2 at 3.4+. I shudder to even think about that... oh, and the pentium E chip is about half the price of a 6400+, too.

 

[hennethannun]

Look at the graphs on this page.

It shows pretty clearly that a C2D running at 3.0 ghz out performs a A64 X2 at the same speed. By more that 10%. And that is before you consider that the C2D will overclock significantly higher (most C2Ds can go up to 3.3-3.5 on stock voltages, and the newer penryns are even better).

It's not really contest at the moment in terms of performance. Intel's products are faster, cooler, more energy efficient and more overclockable. At stock speeds AMD can compete up to about $125 dollars or so, but above that price range, or if you want to overclock there is simply NO REASON to buy AMD right now. And I say that as an AMD supporter. It's just not a good time to own AMD stock...

As for you specific questions, no. The intel processor is (i think) just a bit faster than the opteron at stock speeds. But that AMD chip would be hard to overclock much beyond 3.2-3.4ghz, while the C2D is a good bet to reach 3.6 ghz without batting an eye. AND the C2d is something like 20% faster per cycle.

Put simply, your friend is wrong, and if you can't convince him of that reality then he is going to be very very disappointed when he tries to brag about his new gaming rig...

As for how to explain it him, remind him that noting how fast the clock is running doesn't tell the whole story. Remember that each processor is performing calculations (that's what computers do), so even though the AMD processor might be running on faster clock, the Intel processor is doing more calculations per cylce. If the AMD chip runs twice as fast as the Intel, but the Intel performs 4x more calculations thant he AMD, then the Intel chip is twice as productive, even if it isn't as fast.

 

[secretanchitman]

c2d > any athlon x2 out there. no questions asked.

better architecture, better efficiency, better pricing (above low end cpus and even then, intel has their pentium dual core and celeron dual core based c2ds) = WAY better cpus = c2d.

 

[jeffconnors]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 $83 shipped
Abit IP35-E Motherboard $106 shipped, $30 MIR available $76 shipped

That motherboard and CPU combination will get you to 3.0ghz with the stock cooler, there is no AMD solution that can match that speed for anywhere near that price.

Would this MB work with the E4500? I just read a great review on the IP35-E this morning. Highbuzz, I'm in the same situation with your friend. I was a hard-core AMD fan and everyone here and their references convinced me to change to Intel. There are still a lot of decisions to make on all the components but I'm narrowing it down. My last build was a AMD almost five years ago. Which, as you know, is an eternity in computer hardware.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jeffconnors

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Intel Core 2 Duo E2160 $83 shipped
Abit IP35-E Motherboard $106 shipped, $30 MIR available $76 shipped

That motherboard and CPU combination will get you to 3.0ghz with the stock cooler, there is no AMD solution that can match that speed for anywhere near that price.

Would this MB work with the E4500? I just read a great review on the IP35-E this morning. Highbuzz, I'm in the same situation with your friend. I was a hard-core AMD fan and everyone here and their references convinced me to change to Intel. There are still a lot of decisions to make on all the components but I'm narrowing it down. My last build was a AMD almost five years ago. Which, as you know, is an eternity in computer hardware.

Yes, it should work with all current processors, although a bios flash may be required for 45nm CPUs.

 

[Highbuzz]

Now you guys talk about overclocking, I've tried to get into that myself at points in time but kind of lost interest. (At the time, my rig could handle any game thrown at it.. Now, eh ) He is not the super-technical nor the type to overclock I think. And we are looking at the 125 dollar range, so if AMD can out perform Intel at stock speeds at that price range and he is not an overclocker, might it be worth it to go AM2?

PS: What is AM2+? I've seen it and what's the difference? And another new thing I see is PCI-e x16 v2 (or 2.0?) and that's new to me. Is it a lot faster and should I browse mobos with it, or not really that big of a deal?

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: superstition
Intel's 45 nm Harpertown server chips require expensive motherboards and expensive parity RAM, making them less of a bargain for the desktop.

Of course they're not a bargain for the desktop.. because they're not meant to be.

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Highbuzz
Now you guys talk about overclocking, I've tried to get into that myself at points in time but kind of lost interest. (At the time, my rig could handle any game thrown at it.. Now, eh ) He is not the super-technical nor the type to overclock I think. And we are looking at the 125 dollar range, so if AMD can out perform Intel at stock speeds at that price range and he is not an overclocker, might it be worth it to go AM2?

PS: What is AM2+? I've seen it and what's the difference? And another new thing I see is PCI-e x16 v2 (or 2.0?) and that's new to me. Is it a lot faster and should I browse mobos with it, or not really that big of a deal?

AM2+ supports HT 3.0 (faster HT speeds) and supports seperate IMC and HT planes. It is really for Phenom support (AMD's quadcore processor). Physically, it is the same socket, and supports most AM2 processors (Some AM2+ MB's don't support the 125W processors)

edit: The second question is that PCI express 2.0 has twice the bandwidth of 1.1 PCI SIG Spec. It won't make much of a difference for current video cards, but it has shown to make a little bit of a difference in the 3870X2, so it probably will make a difference in the future.

 

[magreen]

"And we are looking at the 125 dollar range, so if AMD can out perform Intel at stock speeds at that price range and he is not an overclocker, might it be worth it to go AM2?"
AMD isn't faster at stock speeds. However, for the <$125 price range you might find a good bargain on an AMD cpu (newegg has a great deal on the X2 5000+ right now for newsletter subscribers -- $89 w/ free shipping) and it would compare well with what intel could offer for that price, provided you're not going to overclock either one.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

I still think intel is better since you have an upgrade path. Plus, it's only changing a couple settings in the BIOS and running Prime95 overnight. The E2XXX series are great overclockers... Many get to high 2GHz without any voltage bump.

 

[hennethannun]

Originally posted by: magreen
"And we are looking at the 125 dollar range, so if AMD can out perform Intel at stock speeds at that price range and he is not an overclocker, might it be worth it to go AM2?"
AMD isn't faster at stock speeds. However, for the <$125 price range you might find a good bargain on an AMD cpu (newegg has a great deal on the X2 5000+ right now for newsletter subscribers -- $89 w/ free shipping) and it would compare well with what intel could offer for that price, provided you're not going to overclock either one.

that's what I said. AMD is actually slightly outperforming Intel below $125 (in terms of performance per dollar; that 5000+ black edition is a great example). But ONLY if you don't plan to over clock. the E21x0 series can easily be OC'd to 3+ ghz, where they will beat just about anything except the not yet released Phenom 9700/9900.

And at the upper end (~$200 and up) Intel just wins everything: raw performance, performance/dollar, energy usage, temperature, overclocking headroom etc.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Have him go AMD, they need to make money somehow. Meanwhile we'll greedily keep the performance to ourselves here at AT :evil:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Highbuzz
Hello, I'm pretty knowledgable when it comes to computer, not heavily but I do know more than the average guy... A lot more probably.

Anyways, I have no made a computer purchase since Socket 939 CPUs were really powerful. Now, obviously, are C2D and AM2. The thing is though, I always heard C2D were better performance wise now, reverse of what it was when 939 and Pentiums were out.

Now my friend is getting a budget gaming PC and I am helping with picking out the parts. He heavily stands by bigger GHz means better. While I do know they do factor, they are not all powerful like he claims, right? FBS, the cache, and the core type matter as well.

But I have no kept up with hardware (sadly, I meant to, but other things were more important) and I've forgotten what totally makes a CPU the best one. But I still remember reading tons of benchmarks that said C2D > AM2. But like I said, my friend is GHz > all. So I bring you these 2 CPUs I'm trying to decide between...

He picked this AM2: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819105183
I picked this C2D: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819115032

He said since his AM2 had more GHz, it was better. Is he right, is it better? If he is right, how so? Am I right, and if I am, how so? How do I explain to him how it's better?

I hope one of you can help!

Once above dual core 2.6GHz or so there are very few games that will be cpu-bound in gaming. It's the GPU, man!

Don't spend more than $100 on the cpu. Jump on a e2180 and OC it or give the X2 5400+ 2.8GHz AM2 65W a spin ...

Fanboys :roll: Can't live with 'em ..... can't chop 'em up and bury them in the backyard!

 

[Insomniator]

Yeah the only time I would consider an AMD setup would be if you already have a decent board and don't want the hassle of rebuilding/reinstalling.