Neverside

Difference between Athlon64 X2 and intel core 2 duo

So whats are the major differences? I was under the impression that X2 was dual core

it is, its just that its two different companies that make them, AMD call their dual core "X2" and Intel call theirs "core 2 duo" dunno the differences between them though. AMD used to be the best last time I checked, now I hear Intel is supposed to be ahead of AMD. probably only counts for the more expensive ones though.

___________________

//mr.oak

Last edited by mroak, February 1st, 2007 09:57 PM (Edited 1 times)

They all have their differences ... when it comes down to it, choose what you'd like to go with. I just got the 2.9gig core 2 duo, mainly because I've always had Intel stuff. You're going to find a 50/50 argument either way. But if it helps I love the core 2 duo, this thing flies. I can't slow it down no matter how much stuff I have going. Not to mention having photoshop open in less than 4 seconds is really nice.

Last edited by ZeroCulture, February 1st, 2007 10:08 PM (Edited 1 times)

I have a AMD Athlon X2 4600+ and my Photoshop opens in 4 seconds or less too, tried it when running Firefox, Xfire and TeamSpeak. Ive always had an AMD, only the 2 first pc I had might have had intel or something, but that was 66Mhz and 200Mhz PCs LOL.

___________________

//mr.oak

Last edited by mroak, February 2nd, 2007 08:46 PM (Edited 2 times)

Right now C2Ds are better value for money than any of the X2s.

___________________

angelessme, antagonising neverside members, staff and administration since 2001.

Well, now since Intel has their NM process to 65 I think, they can do quad core, but AMD can't achieve that, so they're gonna be required to make a dualCPU dual core meaning 2 cpus that support dual core process. While this may be an expensive alternative for AMD right now, in the future, AMD will be able to release an octo core process once it's able to lower is NM process, which is something Intel must also produce to keep up with AMD, because there is no possible way at that time for Intel to create a single octo core processor...

So basically, when youv'e got dual core processers, that just means you've got 2 processors built on 1 dye or 1 chip. Once the dual cpu thing becomes more popularized and way less expensive, you'll most likely see a shift in who takes the lead in the processor playing field unless Intel can follow the same path AMD is going.

___________________

why would you want an octo core unless you do 8 things simultaneously, I'm not a squid LOL, dual core is overrated if ppl think of it that way, its the speed that counts, then 2 fast ones is better then one.

___________________

//mr.oak

Right.. except intel is winning the nm miniturisation war atm since they just announced the impending release of a 45nm core which will quite easily allow them to a) push out low price quad cores or b) push out extremely high clockspeed dual cores.

Unless AMD's K8L processor is absolutely unbelievabley good (in the same way the 'core' processor turned around the failing p4 line) AMDs short/mid term future still wont be as good as intels.

___________________

angelessme, antagonising neverside members, staff and administration since 2001.

Core 2 duo imo are easier to overclock than AMDS. The core 2 has 4 mb of cache where the amd has 1x 1mb of cache for example. A single threaded application can only access 1mb of cache but on the core 2 it can have all 4mb as this is shared cache not 2 seperate parts. If your going to get a cpu I would go with core 2. I have just switched to intel from AMd and performance is amaizng. My cpu is a core 2 e6600 clocked at 3.0ghz. It ost me £200 and outperforms an fx 62 or the core 2 extreme. It runs cool aswell and im cooling it with a fan.