Intel Core 2 Duo VS AMD

maroon1 said:
E6600 beats FX62 in majority of tests. And don't forget that E6600 consume less power, more overclockable and cheaper. Also E6600 supports SSSE3, so this means that E6600 will beat FX62 by far in future programs that will use SSSE3 instructions.

So, there is no reason for anyone to get FX62 instead of E6600. Period.




Why do you think that it is "little bit over exaggerated" ?? !! :confused:

Just look at this benchmark and read the conclusion
http://techreport.com/reviews//2007q1/athlon64-x2-6000/index.x?pg=13

E6700 clearly beats 6000+, and 6000+ consumes nearly double the power of E6700.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting, you'd think it might be the other way around. But different processors require different things.
 
maroon1 said:
Why do you think that it is "little bit over exaggerated" ?? !! :confused:

Just look at this benchmark and read the conclusion
http://techreport.com/reviews//2007q1/athlon64-x2-6000/index.x?pg=13

E6700 clearly beats 6000+, and 6000+ consumes nearly double the power of E6700.
Click to expand...

Read your own page!
Athlon 64 X2 6000+ a pretty good value proposition. Performance-wise, the X2 6000+ is slower overall than the Core 2 Duo E6700, but not by much. That may be a surprising outcome to those accustomed to seeing Core 2 Duo processors convincingly trounce the competition
 
The Core 2 Duo wins hands down, like already stated. But a nice little article, or group of small articles in this months Maximum PC Magazine pits alot of the high demand tech items for PC's against their arch rivals to see which one is the best.
 
maroon1 said:
Before Intel used the official name, SSSE3 was often referred to as SSE4

If you have an old version of CPU-z then it will say that core 2 duo has SSE4 instructions, but this was corrected by newer versions.
Click to expand...

Yea your right about the SSSE3 and SSE4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top