And Generic42's comment that the X2 4600+ 'wipes the floor' with those processors is not only wrong but unfounded. Let's make it clear where I stand. I'm a bit of an AMD fanboy tbh and would love to see them return with a bang this summer with their native quad cores. We have to face the truth however, and that is: Conroe > X2.
right, but intel kinda screwed everyone up, initially calling the e6300 and e6400 allendale's on their website. maybe not so much intel, but the people who made the webpages. it was that way for a month before they fixed it.
I think most of us are missing the point here.. The thread's not about Core2 beating A64/X2.. that much has been made more than clear in every comparison I've seen, bar a few wins for AMD here and there... I totally agree with fozzy here: Although Core2 (and to a certain extent AM2) will bring benefits to anyone running P4 or low-end A64 rigs, the performance is probably not proportional to the cost of the upgrade, at least for the moment... - Anyone with a 1-2 yr old system having probs running games in anything other than massive resolutions obviously have some kind of bottleneck, but it's highly unlikely to be the CPU. - More likely RAM or GPU issues. Hell, my old Sempron3100+(1.8Ghz), 1Gb RAM, 6800GT and cack HD was able to run BF2 at 1024x768, 6xAA, all maxed out without stuttering, and I used to be 1st/2nd to spawn every time, despite running an old PATA HD! Don't get me wrong, I will definately be upgrading to dual core of some kind in the near future, but I'm waiting until the Penryn vs K8L dust settles. Until then, I'm stuck with my old AXP setup.. Sure, it lags a bit sometimes when multitasking, (due to having 512Mb) but I'm not gaming at the mo so I'm more than happy spending money on more important things: beer! / Non-serial upgrader signing off /
nah, no one's missing the point...its just a point that is based on opinion, with that opinion based on tests (which no one has pointed out are based on better performing socket am2 technology, not 939), which is then rationalized by how much the performance would be equalized by oc'in the inferior cpu. which is countered by those that point out you can oc the better cpu to a much higher % then the inferior cpu...etc etc. u may get what you feel is solid performance from your pc, but ill take my performance over yours any day of the year, and feel more than justified with the cost of the "upgrade" and that it was "proportional". but, you know what, thats only my opinion...
If you look at it from the sidelines, users coming into the field would be facing equal costs to upgrade to an X2 or a C2D. Which would you pick?
I can't see a reason for anyone with a mid-range AMD setup to swap out for a C2D setup. For a start, the cost is around £350 (s775 board, e4300 and 2 x 1GB sticks of DDR2 6400) to end up with a setup that's more or less the same, until you start overclocking it, of course and as everyone knows, ymmv. It's literally the only reason to upgrade (the ability to push the cpu) and I can't really see a huge benefit, other than an extra 20fps or so, or perhaps a few seconds to maybe a minute or so knocked off an encode that would take about four or five minutes anyway (generally speaking). A C2D setup is a must for anyone who's coming from a couple of cpu generations ago and is looking to upgrade.
more or less the same? there isnt a mid to low range 939 system that is "more or less the same" as a c2d setup...not even stock to stock. and it gets more than 20 fps more...you might want to re-browse the comparos again...but, i tire of this conversation...it is definitely worth the upgrade, in my opinion, if you are on a 939 setup...and if you are planning on going from a low-end am2 to high end am2, then again, it is well worth going c2d...
CPU-Z initially reported the E6300 and E6400 as Allendales - I think that's where a lot of the confusion came about. Not blaming CPU-Z, because I'm sure the Intel roadmaps referred to them as Allendales early on, as that was what was initially planned, I believe. Back to the topic though, you'll be pushed to notice massive differences in gaming between Core2 and AMD64 until you start pushing out frames with dual GeForce 8800 GTX's.
I said mid-range, not low-range. I'd regard mid-range as an X2-4600. This compares favourably with a C2D-6300, looking at the result tables. I definately agree with your last point though, 939 and AM2 at the moment are not worth upgrading to a higher speed - C2D is definately the way to go.
basically forget about money, forget about C2D beating AM2/939 what he is saying is if you have a single core CPU and you use your pc mainly for gaming. provided you have a good GPU, there is no need to go buying expensive CPU's
i hear ya...personally, i woulda considered the 4600 a starting point for a high end...but i see where you're comin from..
Well I'm done with this thread lol. I was just trying to tell people to wait for quad-core if they had a good single core and their only interest was gaming. But as I suspected people went off on the whole "C2D pwns AMD" which is true. It's just unnecessary power.
I just HAD to lift this one up after seeing this chart: http://skenegroup.net/fi/artikkelit/asus_en8800gtx.4 scroll to the end of the site and there you have it. The text is in finnish, but the chart is pretty clear, there's Athlon 64 3200+ (@2.66 GHz) and E6700 running the same games with the same 7900s and 8800s in single and SLI-mode. I'd say the results in are remarkably close to each other. Keeping in mind the difference in price is roughly 300 euros.
