Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 978 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s May 19 - 05:48pm EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Processors /
 

  Best dual - core ocer 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2
SombaSan Aug 04, 2005, 10:11pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
I finished reading the first page and decided to post.

the new Duals out by AMD are better than the Intel Dual Core chips. Not only is the arcitechture outstanding, but the 3800+ verisons which are more affordable can be easily OC and are made with mutitasking in mind. (well both companies chips are) -_^.

Anyway my fav of the series is the 4200+. as always AMD rulez

_____________________________________________
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windosr @ 3.4Ghz(x2)
RAM: 4GB G.skill 12.4.4.4. Video: ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GDDR5
LG Black Blu-ray Burner
Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM
"The Best Intel Chip is an AMD"
Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Craig Rushworth Aug 06, 2005, 06:13pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
The 4400+ dual core chips r amazing oced mine to 2.65 and wants more but my memory lets me down thats being sorted!

Daniel Gibbon Aug 16, 2005, 06:37pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer

AMD 3200+ 64 90nm @STOCK an proud
msi platinum neo 2 nforce 4
2gb 4x 512mb PC4000 Ballistix
sapphire x1900xt 512mb
4 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB
2 x 500gb hard drives
Koolance Exos cooling system with 265watt peltier
mx1000 laser mouse
Tagan
Bob Smith Aug 16, 2005, 07:19pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer

rex langdon Aug 16, 2005, 09:06pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
Ding ding,thats the end of round two. Amd was sticking, ducking, moving, making some
quick or should I say quicker combinations,but Intel ,a four to one underdog, is hanging in there.
It seems that most of the crowd is for AMD ,but as the INTEL people say "what do they know".

He he he muhahahaha

AMD FX51
ASUS SK8N
OCZ 2048 reg. ecc duel channel DDR400
Hitache sata 250 GB
BFG 6800 GT OC
ANTEC 550 PSU
guru Shane Aug 16, 2005, 09:10pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
Well, the best dual core overclocker is an AMD. There is no doubts about that in my mind. Intel does offer their dual cores cheaper, however, and that makes them very competitive since the majority of the market is more geared toward a budget machine anyway.

varun rao Aug 17, 2005, 05:14am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
Well u can call me what u want... I couldnt care less. The AMD cpu's run cooler, do not need a new motherboard , offer better perfomance , are based on a better architecture that has direct connect type communication channels unlike Intels weak single FSB feeding both processors and can be oc'ed better. I think the price is fine. If u want it cheap then go for an Intel.... but dont complain about AMD's prices... they're not running a charity here and are not going to drop their prices just cause you thought the pricing was not justified.

If u want the quality, then u often have to pay the price... AMD had always been appreciated for good product pricing, why should that opinion suddenly change?. If some of their chips are expensive... then there must be good reason for the same.

oh and the prices quoted at both Newegg and tiger diret for the 840EE is 1000$... thats more than the 4800+ X2.
THe pentium D 840 with no HT is only 543 $.... now why would u compare that with the AMD 4800+ X2 ?.
very conveniently comparing Intels 'not-best' against AMD's top of the line.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outdated
Bob Smith Aug 17, 2005, 05:58am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
Errr no, I was simply comparing price to performance. And All I was doing was quoting fact. I too think AMD make the better dual core CPUs, but I'm not going to tell someone else that 30% performance will be worth 60% more cost- because that's their decision. Your opinions are your opinions, don't try and put them across as if they're gospel.

FordGT90Concept Aug 17, 2005, 06:22am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
I'd say go with Intel because the AMD's aren't worth their weight in gold (serious). I mean, it is a lot like how money is distributed in the USA. The top 5% own 60% of all fixed assets in the US (don't quote me on that). The same is true for the latest and greatest technology. The most recent, fastest, and/or most advanced processors out there cost obscene amounts of money. Intel's dual core processors have been out for quite some time now so they aren't the latest and greatest and therefore are cheaper. Remember, computer performance vs price is on an exponential incline. The top end stuff, you *don't* get what you pay for. You get bragging rights for maybe 6 months and then it is old news. A shame really but some people would pay an arm and a leg for those bragging rights believe it or not albeit, not many.

Bottom line:
Take Intel.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
EFileTahi-A Aug 17, 2005, 06:47am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
varun rao quote:

"Well u can call me what u want... I couldnt care less. The AMD cpu's run cooler, do not need a new motherboard , offer better perfomance , are based on a better architecture that has direct connect type communication channels unlike Intels weak single FSB feeding both processors and can be oc'ed better. I think the price is fine. If u want it cheap then go for an Intel.... but dont complain about AMD's prices... they're not running a charity here and are not going to drop their prices just cause you thought the pricing was not justified.

If u want the quality, then u often have to pay the price... AMD had always been appreciated for good product pricing, why should that opinion suddenly change?. If some of their chips are expensive... then there must be good reason for the same.

oh and the prices quoted at both Newegg and tiger diret for the 840EE is 1000$... thats more than the 4800+ X2.
THe pentium D 840 with no HT is only 543 $.... now why would u compare that with the AMD 4800+ X2 ?.
very conveniently comparing Intels 'not-best' against AMD's top of the line."

Very well answered! Could not agree with you more.

Intel Quad 9550 2.8GHZ;
ATI4890 1GB
4GB DDR2 1333Mhz
9.6TB (Several HDs)
CM830 Stacker Case
24'' Samsung Screen
19'' LG Screen
720W CoolerMaster PSU
FordGT90Concept Aug 17, 2005, 07:53am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
Pentium dual core processors with HT technology is the equivilant of 4 cores (2 physical and 2 virtual) where X2 is just 2 (2 physical). Obviously, they are in seperate leagues... where is AMD's version of virtual cores?

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
varun rao Aug 17, 2005, 09:48am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
First of all Intels 'HT' technology is the biggest hoax of the century.... most people like to switch it off cause its more trouble than its worth.
HT is not anything new.... it was always there... even when the P4's were being pummelled by the Ahtlon 64's. Its no advantage,,, Intel just found a way to jack up the price.


Secondly the THG comparison where the 30% gain was quoted at one point was between an Intel 840 EE and the AMD 4800+ X2,... hence I made the comparison.
If ur going to compare lesser inferior processors by Intel then u should know that the 4200 and 4400+ X2 are all in the same price range.. around 560$.

So again Mr Mathemagician ... the price of the Intel 840EE is MORE 200$ MORE than the 4800+ X2.. where pray is the 60% cost increase?.
if u were talking about the non HT Intel 840 ... thats an unfair comparison... u can pick a less expensive AMD core like the 4400+ and it'll run laps around the Intel.

AMD stands for quality.
And their processors are very competetively priced. Its not their problem that Intel took a couple of Celerons, slapped them together and are trying to pass it off as the next best thing.
AMD has spent a lot of time in developing their dual cores and the unique architecture is proof of that. What did INtel do??... there is nothing amazing about theur dual cores and the obvious bottle necks are all there. So if not for perfomance, ur paying for the OBVIOUSLY better processor.

And I was never trying to force my opinion down anyones throat. Go read my post. And tell me where I tried to get in anyones face?. I merely pointed out how the AMD dual core was the better processor with the better architecture and hence better overall perfomance.
AMD's top-o the line is cheaper than Intels top-o the line.
AMD's second best dual cores are all more or less the same price as the non HT 840's. AMD's 4400 and 4200+ is in the same price range as the great 840.
none of this is rocket science.

It is you that dug up an old thread and decided to have a go. Go read my post again.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outdated
Shadow_Ops_Airman1 Aug 17, 2005, 11:00am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
best Intel CPUs are as Follows:
Pentium 2
Pentium 3
Pentium 4 Northwood/EE(400-800 and 1066?FSB)
Pentium-M

Average Intel CPUs:
Pentium 4 Williamette
Pentium Pro
Pentium D/ D EE

worst Intel CPUs:
Pentium
Pentium 4 Prescott(skt 478, Skt T)

AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (133x14= 1867MHz) (209x11= 2299MHz)
DFI LP NF2 Ultra-B (Hellfire 3EG Rev2)
Antec SX800, Neo HE 500, 4 Antec 8CM Fans
Thermalright SI-97 1 Antec Tricool 12CM Fan
CL SB XFi Xtreme Music
2x Barracuda HDs (250/400)
2x Samsung Write
FordGT90Concept Aug 17, 2005, 01:06pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
You forgot the 486 under the best. ;)

Anywho, my friend has a very similar machine to my older one (2200+ w/ 512 MB vs. P4 w/ 384 MB) and his is substantially faster than mine because of the Hyper Threading. Maybe some people have problems with it but those that don't gain a lot from it. It does a lot especially for multitasking. It also puts equal clockspeed Intels over AMDs.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
varun rao Aug 17, 2005, 01:32pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
Intel themselves have said that HT does not make a difference unless the software has code that supports and exploits the same.
And specifies HT be disabled unless ur running XP... further Intel claimed the real application was in servers... and recently there was news about an exploit in HT technology that allowed security compromise and unnatural server overloads.
so while HT can be an advantage...while its not being troublesome... its very isolated in its application and hence has very little overall effect.

Airmas.. thats a good list u got there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Outdated
Craig Rushworth Aug 17, 2005, 02:06pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
AMD Dual core rule that the end intel will take years to catch up! My 4400+ is a amazing ocer with ocz pc4800 ddr600!

FordGT90Concept Aug 17, 2005, 03:32pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Best dual - core ocer
He does primarily drafting and some gaming on his machine. Oh, and about HT not being used by software, it is used a lot more than dual core is. On top of that, as dual core support increases, so will virtual core support. I generally don't like Intel but they are on to something with virtual core technology.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.