What's AMD's equivalent to Intel's Core + Core duo?

[JEDI]

since i've been told Core Duo + Core2 duo's are better bang for the buck than the previous generation of cpu's, i began looking for combo deals.

Fry's has AMD mobo/cpu combo deals. but i've havent kept up w/hardware so have no idea if the combo is a good bang for the buck compared to the Intels.

What's AMDs equivalent of Core/core2 duo?

THX!

 

[atom]

Core 2 > AMD > Core

It's pretty simple. Only go AMD right now for the low end. Anything else get Core 2.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: atom
Core 2 > AMD > Core

It's pretty simple. Only go AMD right now for the low end. Anything else get Core 2.

Correction - AMD for midrange and low end. Just because Intel's C2D is better than AMD doesn't make AMD only low end now.

 

[atom]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Correction - AMD for midrange and low end. Just because Intel's C2D is better than AMD doesn't make AMD only low end now.

I dunno, to me it sorta does if you are overclocking. To me when I think of mid range I think of 250-400. If you are OCing there isn't any AMD proc in that range that I would get when a 215 dollar opteron 1212 can get to 3 gigs. In the past 2 months I built 4 AMD boxes,2 with a X2 3800 and 2 with the 1212. The 3800's got to 2.8ghz and 2.9ghz and both the opterons got to 3.

If not overclocking, then per clock core 2 is roughly 15% better per mhz than AMD so it depends on how good a deal you get on the AMD to see if it's worth it.

 

[Aluvus]

In desktops, the Athlon 64 X2 series.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: atom
Core 2 > AMD > Core

It's pretty simple. Only go AMD right now for the low end. Anything else get Core 2.

Correction - AMD for midrange and low end. Just because Intel's C2D is better than AMD doesn't make AMD only low end now.

Not really. AMD is pretty much the low end now.

Even a bottom of the line Core 2 Duo like the E6300 will smoke most of AMD's product line and if you overclock it even a little then it smokes every single AMD cpu made. Overclock it a lot and you have something that AMD can't touch with any amount of overclocking.

AMD may have something competitive by next summer. I hope for competition's sake they do.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

yeah but cheap good intel mobo's are much more expensive than amd mobos. that matters to thje budget/midrange builder.

 

[n7]

If you don't OC at all, AMD is still an excellent option.

E6600+ > all AMD options, but the 4800/5000+ generally beat the E6400, & the E6300 is around 4200/4600 performance.

But if OCing is brought into the picture, then the C2D is the only way to go.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: atom
Core 2 > AMD > Core

It's pretty simple. Only go AMD right now for the low end. Anything else get Core 2.

Clock for clock though, Core 2 > Core > Athlon 64

 

[Gikaseixas]

AMD is not low end, they are sandwiched by Intel in the charts. Remember that not everyone overclocks their processor therefor a 4800+, 5000+ or 5200+ will do the job.
Now if you're into overclocking then the obvious option is Intel Core 2.

X2 processors = low end????????

 

[dguy6789]

Well there really is little reason to buy an X2 these days. For every price group of the Athlon 64 X2, you can get an as fast or faster Core 2 Duo.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Beachboy

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: atom
Core 2 > AMD > Core

It's pretty simple. Only go AMD right now for the low end. Anything else get Core 2.

Correction - AMD for midrange and low end. Just because Intel's C2D is better than AMD doesn't make AMD only low end now.

Not really. AMD is pretty much the low end now.

Even a bottom of the line Core 2 Duo like the E6300 will smoke most of AMD's product line and if you overclock it even a little then it smokes every single AMD cpu made. Overclock it a lot and you have something that AMD can't touch with any amount of overclocking.

AMD may have something competitive by next summer. I hope for competition's sake they do.

The E6300 (without OC) is about equal to an X2 4200+ in most benches...

I agree with your sentiment about the K8L. On paper, they look like they'll take the speed crown back...but it's never safe to make plans based on paper.

 

[nyker96]

Non so far but K8L will be more competitive with a slightly improved core. even that is rumored not to supass core2duo on a per core punch. But don't know yet have to see the real thing to be sure of this.

 

[Noubourne]

AMDs answer won't come out till mid next year.

 

[Mustanggt]

Originally posted by: n7
If you don't OC at all, AMD is still an excellent option.

E6600+ > all AMD options, but the 4800/5000+ generally beat the E6400, & the E6300 is around 4200/4600 performance.

But if OCing is brought into the picture, then the C2D is the only way to go.

I know alot of people seem to think C2D smokes anything AMD has but thats not true at all just look around at the review benchies the 4800x2 and 5000x2 overclocked beat the 6300 intel easy.
Now if you overclock the 6300 thats where AMD is slower.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: atom

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Correction - AMD for midrange and low end. Just because Intel's C2D is better than AMD doesn't make AMD only low end now.

I dunno, to me it sorta does if you are overclocking. To me when I think of mid range I think of 250-400. If you are OCing there isn't any AMD proc in that range that I would get when a 215 dollar opteron 1212 can get to 3 gigs. In the past 2 months I built 4 AMD boxes,2 with a X2 3800 and 2 with the 1212. The 3800's got to 2.8ghz and 2.9ghz and both the opterons got to 3.

If not overclocking, then per clock core 2 is roughly 15% better per mhz than AMD so it depends on how good a deal you get on the AMD to see if it's worth it.

Id love to know where youre pulling 15% from...

and Intels routinely achieve higher clocks when overclocking.

AMD is low end only now imo.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Mustanggt

Originally posted by: n7
If you don't OC at all, AMD is still an excellent option.

E6600+ > all AMD options, but the 4800/5000+ generally beat the E6400, & the E6300 is around 4200/4600 performance.

But if OCing is brought into the picture, then the C2D is the only way to go.

I know alot of people seem to think C2D smokes anything AMD has but thats not true at all just look around at the review benchies the 4800x2 and 5000x2 overclocked beat the 6300 intel easy.
Now if you overclock the 6300 thats where AMD is slower.

Awesome, AMDs top end ($325 for their top end, why do you think its that cheap?) can beat Intels $180 chip...

 

[Captante]

The short answer is that right now they don't have one... at the low end (meaning single core) AMD is still the way to go & you could consider a 3800+ X2, but beyond that C2D is the only way to go, especially if you plan on overclocking.

 

[reset]

what's holding me back from switching to c2d is the cost (not cpu). i'm at the mid-range and i don't overclock. switching to ddr2 and new c2d mobo is cost prohibitive for me (at the moment).

when ddr2 (and ddr) prices come down (when??!!!) i'll probably switch over. i know there's an ecs c2d board that supports ddr and ddr2 but i'm not a fan of ecs. till then i'm looking to switch to dual core and will have to stick with amd.

 

[lopri]

Umm.. I thought low-end was usually reserved for Celeron/Sempr0n? Or something like Pentium D 805.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: lopri
Umm.. I thought low-end was usually reserved for Celeron/Sempr0n? Or something like Pentium D 805.

Single core A64s are getting cheap enough to eat up that segment.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Well there really is little reason to buy an X2 these days. For every price group of the Athlon 64 X2, you can get an as fast or faster Core 2 Duo.

Says the guy with a Pentium D!

It's a question of choice -- for low/mid range, as stated above, a low-end X2 + Solid AMD mobo (Nforce 4/5 or ATI 3200 chipset) can be had for less than Core2Duo + a solid Intel motherboard.

To answer the OP's question (which in hindsight was a bit open-ended and open to too much fanboy debate), the AMD chips which compete with Intel's Core2Duo are the Athlon X2 chips. Those ore the Opteron dual cores (Opteron 16x series for Socket 939 and I'm not even sure the series name for AM2).

The word "equivalent" just gets too many C2Duo fanboys' blood boiling "it's not equivalent C2D wins in everything dammit!!!!"

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Well there really is little reason to buy an X2 these days. For every price group of the Athlon 64 X2, you can get an as fast or faster Core 2 Duo.

Says the guy with a Pentium D!

It's a question of choice -- for low/mid range, as stated above, a low-end X2 + Solid AMD mobo (Nforce 4/5 or ATI 3200 chipset) can be had for less than Core2Duo + a solid Intel motherboard.

To answer the OP's question (which in hindsight was a bit open-ended and open to too much fanboy debate), the AMD chips which compete with Intel's Core2Duo are the Athlon X2 chips. Those are the Opteron dual cores (Opteron 16x series for Socket 939 and I'm not even sure the series name for AM2).

The word "equivalent" just gets too many C2Duo fanboys' blood boiling "it's not equivalent C2D wins in everything dammit!!!!"

My only argument with your statement is the extra few bucks gets you a LOT of performance. So unless you are on a really tight budget and cant shell out the extra $50, there is no reason to go AMD for anything but single core.

(typing this on an AMD64 3000+ Venice @ 2.7ghz)

 

[Arkaign]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005

so, $183 Core2 6300

and ..

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813128017

for $116

so $299 mobo/cpu combo, nicely fast stock, and very overclockable.

Vs.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103747

for $182 X2 4200+

and

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131022

for $97

so, $279 mobo/cpu combo, nicely fast stock, and very overclockable.

Personally, as much as I've had great experiences with AMD in the past, I can't recommend them right now for anything of this budget level and above. If you're not overclocking, the performance is fairly equal at this price point, but you have arguably an easier upgrade path with Core2 (fastest current processors, proven Kentsfield support, etc).

If you overclock, it's not even worth wasting brain-cycles thinking about.

AMD will be back, but if you're buying now, AMD is only for low end solutions logically. Personally, I still think many budget gamers are pretty well off getting a sub-$100 A64, a cheap NF4 DDR1 mobo, and the best video card they can budget in with the rest of their bucks.

For gaming on a budget, getting a $200 video card instead of integrated or a $100 one can easily double your experience, compared to a $200 cpu instead of a $100 one. Case in point :

$100ish A64 3700+ Single Core w/7900GS $200ish

vs

$180ish Core2 6300 Dual Core w/7600GS $110ish

Even though the C2 is much beefier, in almost all game situations that 7900GS is going to run circles around the 7600GS ..

Ok, enough rambling, build smart Have fun!

 

[Kur]

C2D = $250+ mobo and $150+ memory
AMD = $50 mobo and $50 memory

All depends on budget, yes C2D can upgrade easier and s939 is dying but hey I would rather pay a few hundred less then pay a few hundred more then what I really need. (I'm a gamer anyway.)