Intel Core 2 Duo VS AMD

Xwardos

Xwardos

Member
could anyone tell me at the moment which is the best commercial CPU i can buy for GAMING. i've read a lot of review that are controversial to each other and i'm having trouble making a solid desicion. my guess is the Inter Core 2 Due...

Any Suggestions and Oppinions fellow Gamers????
 
core 2 duo, no doubt about it, just check the benchmarks on toms hardware

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

all the facts you need are there to show you that the Core 2 duo line eclipses the AMD line pretty much across the board. The E6600 will out do an FX-62 for a fraction of the price.


*awaits at least another 5 posts from people to say exactly the same thing even though all has already been explained*
 
thanks....you did a good job scaring off others from replying with there ideas lol....oh well! S**t happens.
 
lol, sorry fella but there is a tendancy to just repeat over and over again whats already been said by people. Core 2 duo are performing so much better than AMD at the moment that it would only be a die hard and extremely blinkered AMD fan that would say otherwise :)
 
umm ok...well till now, it seems that my choice for a core 2 due was correct. oh and another thing. and AMD fan is never going to build the ultimate pc. and neiter will an intel fan. you know as much as i do that it's a combination of all the parts together that make an ass kicking computer system. regardles wether it's an amd or intel.

tell me if i'm wrong MAC? :D
 
well yeah of course the combination of the rest of the parts is going to contribute, its possible to build systems for home use with multiple opterons that would create one hell of a computer, if you were using a single processor then the core 2 ex 6800 or a quad core would be needed.

The problem becomes that by the time you've bought all of the top line items, got them home and assembled it. You will turn the pc on and find out that someone has just released a new and improved part that could fractionally improve your system, thus rendering no longer the ultimate system :)
 
jimmymac said:
core 2 duo, no doubt about it, just check the benchmarks on toms hardware

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

all the facts you need are there to show you that the Core 2 duo line eclipses the AMD line pretty much across the board. The E6600 will out do an FX-62 for a fraction of the price.


*awaits at least another 5 posts from people to say exactly the same thing even though all has already been explained*
Click to expand...

I love how these threads always get the same response; "the C2D blows any AMD CPU away at a fraction of the price".

Did you look at the benchmarks before you posted?

Or at price?

The FX-62 is <$100 more expensive than the E6600 and if you actually LOOK at the benchmarks, you will see that the 2CPUs you list are actually comparable. The FX-62 beats the E6600 in many of the benchmarks and where it doesn't you are looking at maybe 5% better for the E6600.

So does that really support your argument?

I'm not an AMD fanboy, but neither do I blindly accept that the C2D is gonna blow every other proc away. They are good, but for similar money you can get comparable performance.

And of course this doesn't even begin to touch on whether or not you will be able to even notice the performance difference on really high end CPS (for non-benchmark apps of course)...
 
pbdr said:
I love how these threads always get the same response; "the C2D blows any AMD CPU away at a fraction of the price".

Did you look at the benchmarks before you posted?

Or at price?

The FX-62 is <$100 more expensive than the E6600 and if you actually LOOK at the benchmarks, you will see that the 2CPUs you list are actually comparable. The FX-62 beats the E6600 in many of the benchmarks and where it doesn't you are looking at maybe 5% better for the E6600.

So does that really support your argument?

I'm not an AMD fanboy, but neither do I blindly accept that the C2D is gonna blow every other proc away. They are good, but for similar money you can get comparable performance.

And of course this doesn't even begin to touch on whether or not you will be able to even notice the performance difference on really high end CPS (for non-benchmark apps of course)...
Click to expand...

He asked what's the best gaming CPU, not what is the best processor for your money.
 
@pbdr: I think you got it mixed up. The E6600 is around $310, where as the FX-62 is around $400 I believe.
 
pbdr said:
I love how these threads always get the same response; "the C2D blows any AMD CPU away at a fraction of the price".

Did you look at the benchmarks before you posted?
Click to expand...

did you even read my post before writing this rubbish?

firslty please point out where i say that the C2d blows away any AMD cpu?

jimmymac said:
all the facts you need are there to show you that the Core 2 duo line eclipses the AMD line pretty much across the board. The E6600 will out do an FX-62 for a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

if you would care to open your eyes you will see that i state the C2D line eclipses AMD pretty much across the board, the C2D does indeed out perform the vast majority of AMD's current line of CPU's as shown by the benchmarks, in fact theres only about 2 AMD CPU's that are in the mix with the core 2 duo line, the FX-62 and the X2 5000.

So on that respect my arguement holds up.

The E6600 does out perform the FX-62 in the majority of benchmarks, and if its <$100 less expensive that the FX-62 then im pretty sure that makes it a fraction of the price, does it not?

So i would appreciate it if you would take the time to read and divulge the information put before you before making such pretentious comments

many thanks :)
 
I believe a computer site did a test with the X2 6000 against the E6700, which it lost horribly to.
 
It does get beat by the E6700 but I think the word (horribly) is a little bit over exaggerated! There really pretty close.
 
jimmymac, my point in the previous post (which was not quoting you exactly, just noting your presence on the bandwagon) was that whenever someone asks for a CPU comparison it is basically a race to see who can type "AMD sucks" the fastest.

If you look at the benchmarks you will see that for the comparison you gave, the C2D and AMD are close (within 5-10% either way) in performance, and the FX-62 beats the E6600 in many (not most) of the tests. Are you really going to see a large enough difference in actual performance to warrant the vehement replies?

That's all I was saying.
 
pbdr said:
jimmymac, my point in the previous post (which was not quoting you exactly, just noting your presence on the bandwagon) was that whenever someone asks for a CPU comparison it is basically a race to see who can type "AMD sucks" the fastest.

If you look at the benchmarks you will see that for the comparison you gave, the C2D and AMD are close (within 5-10% either way) in performance, and the FX-62 beats the E6600 in many (not most) of the tests. Are you really going to see a large enough difference in actual performance to warrant the vehement replies?

That's all I was saying.
Click to expand...

But you do agree that it would be pointless to buy the more expensive processor when they both perform roughly the same?

And, if you add in the amount of overclocking that can be done with the Core 2 Duo series, it makes it a no brainer. The E6600 can quite easily get up to 3.25, and usually 3.5 (on air), from the starting point of 2.4Ghz. The FX-62 starts at 2.8 (note the less performance per clock), and it has a hard time breaking 3.1Ghz with air.
 
I tend to agree with the price issue, but I wouldn't say pointless (more practical yes, but a lot of things can go into the choice; especially with relatively small price differences).

But overclocking is a different story, I don't OC, and most people I know don't either. You have a CPU that is powerful enough to run nearly every application without a hitch so what's the need of OCing other than as an academic exercise (to get higher benchmarks)? Plus, you may be reducing your expensive processors lifetime and voiding warranties to boot.

That is not to say I think overclocking is bad or pointless (I've OCed my X2 for the heck of it, but now run it "stock"), just that I personally don't feel it should be used as a general measure of what CPU is better.
 
Last edited:
pbdr said:
FX-62 beats the E6600 in many (not most) of the tests.
Click to expand...

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.


StrangleHold said:
It does get beat by the E6700 but I think the word (horribly) is a little bit over exaggerated! There really pretty close.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top