Which CPU is really better and why? (confused about clock speeds...)

twolves90

twolves90

New Member
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Conroe 1066MHz FSB 2M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor

OR

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor 2000MHz HT 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 Dual Core Processor

I was planning to build and AMD rig with the processor above until I learned of Conroe, and now im interested. The 6600 Conroe looks more to my taste, but if the 6300 or 6400 would kill the AMD processor above anyway, I may just grab one of those for a cheaper price.

IN ADDITION, Here is what I currently use (according to my comp's online spec sheet):
Pentium 4 / 2.60 GHz with HyperThreading Technology
800 MHz front side bus
mPGA478
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...c=en&product=326411&lang=en&docname=c00024879

Would either processor be much of an upgrade to my current one?

Thank you
 
Last edited:
PC eye said:
The dual core Intel model runs at 1.86ghz while the 4600+ X2 runs at 2.4ghz. Since the AMD model is also a dual core model you would be looking at a faster cpu there. The E6600 Core 2 runs at 2.4ghz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003
Click to expand...

Clock speed doesn't necessarily mean it's faster... The E6300 is a great overclocking chip, and will easily be able to overclock to 2.8 Ghz... I currently have mine @ 3.4 Ghz, on stock cooling. Anyway, I recommend the Conroe CPU ;)
 
Rambo said:
Clock speed doesn't necessarily mean it's faster... The E6300 is a great overclocking chip, and will easily be able to overclock to 2.8 Ghz... I currently have mine @ 3.4 Ghz, on stock cooling. Anyway, I recommend the Conroe CPU ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Rambo said:
Clock speed doesn't necessarily mean it's faster... The E6300 is a great overclocking chip, and will easily be able to overclock to 2.8 Ghz... I currently have mine @ 3.4 Ghz, on stock cooling. Anyway, I recommend the Conroe CPU ;)
Click to expand...

OMG you over cloacked it almost twise its speed?? :eek: did u have to play with voltages and other little tricks to make it stable at stock cooling??
 
Rambo said:
Clock speed doesn't necessarily mean it's faster... The E6300 is a great overclocking chip, and will easily be able to overclock to 2.8 Ghz... I currently have mine @ 3.4 Ghz, on stock cooling. Anyway, I recommend the Conroe CPU ;)
Click to expand...

Why do you think AMD held the record of outperforming faster Intel models for several years?! Do you see any 3+ ghz AMD cpus around? But AM2 as well as the newer plans for the new Opteron line look good here still.
 
PC eye said:
Why do you think AMD held the record of outperforming faster Intel models for several years?! Do you see any 3+ ghz AMD cpus around? But AM2 as well as the newer plans for the new Opteron line look good here still.
Click to expand...

He knows that... he was just saying that since you said you should go with a 2.4 Ghz E6600 to match the 4600+'s clock speed. Core 2 Duo's match if not beat A 64 clock-per-clock.

Would either processor be much of an upgrade to my current one?
Click to expand...
Yes, but you would have to upgrade your mobo, RAM, and probably video card... possibly even more.
 
PC eye said:
Why do you think AMD held the record of outperforming faster Intel models for several years?! Do you see any 3+ ghz AMD cpus around? But AM2 as well as the newer plans for the new Opteron line look good here still.
Click to expand...
Of all people PC eye, you are falling into the whole Operating frequency trap.

When Intel switched to the core architecture, the first of these being the core 2's or "conroes" as they are more commonly called, from the netburst architecture Intel finally got smart with there cpus. They finally realized that people weren't falling for their super high speeds adn were finally starting to look at actual performance. Which this switch they did lower the operating frequencies quite substantially, and now they are effectively even with AMD's frequencies for the most part. Now with this drop in Frequencies they also dropped the speed at which their cpu cycles, which pretty much is how often a cpu processes information. But as they laxed their cycle speed they also allow for more information to be processeed per cycle, which AMD has been doing for years. However what makes the Core Architecture and the Core 2 processors so amazing (and yes I am and AMD guy, but there are certain times where performance is just completely lopsided) is the fact that they took it one step further and are processing more information per cycle then AMD is doing, so now Intel is the one doing more per clock cycle.

In addition they have added almost unprecedented amounts of cache and have also lowered the default or stock voltages of their cpu's by around 40% compared to their previous line up. This allows for incredible overclocking potential allowing people to add more vcore to their overclock allowing for a stable overclock at a higher FSB without dramatically increasing their temperatures. That is why you are seeing almost truly insane overclocks, especially without LN2 or other extreme forms of cooling for these to be achieved. There is really no way you can compare a core 2 chip to a x2, because quite frankly its no contest. You must remember the e6600 pretty much beats the FX-62 in every set of benchmarks they have tested them with, for 1/3 of the price. Even the e6400 beat the FX-62 on various benchmarks, only losing in final performance by a relatively small margin. So I can say with some confidence, but yet no personal experience, that the e6300 would almost hands down beat the x2 4200.
 
I haven't fallen into anything. I'll just wait for a new Opteron or AM3 when AMD starts coming out with their tail kickers again. :P
 
PC eye said:
I haven't fallen into anything. I'll just wait for a new Opteron or AM3 when AMD starts coming out with their tail kickers again. :P
Click to expand...
But honestly by that time I am sure Intel would have come out with something faster. But pretty soon we should start to see good competition between the two companies again.
 
bball4life said:
But honestly by that time I am sure Intel would have come out with something faster. But pretty soon we should start to see good competition between the two companies again.
Click to expand...

Well there should be with the latest buyout of ATI seen. Do you think Intel will make a move on NVidia? :P
 
PC eye said:
Well there should be with the latest buyout of ATI seen. Do you think Intel will make a move on NVidia? :P
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it, Intel can develop the graphics chips on their own if they want. They are two massive companies, and the merge just wouldn't go well for anybody, nor be necessary.
 
ATI was no convenience store either and AMD bought them. Gee that would really boost them up if Intel goofs NVidia. :eek: !!! Gee? Then I would have to run out and buy a new board with other then the nForce 4 chip on this one. :eek: !!!
 
PC eye said:
The dual core Intel model runs at 1.86ghz while the 4600+ X2 runs at 2.4ghz. Since the AMD model is also a dual core model you would be looking at a faster cpu there. The E6600 Core 2 runs at 2.4ghz http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115003
Click to expand...


Please keep in mind that Core 2 Duo is not their "Dual Core" product line.
They shouldn't have called it Core 2 Duo in my opinion, since it sounds like it is the same product as their "Dual Core" CPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top