Printable View
well for me its funny to compare AMD O/Ced and stock Conroe? And people are saying : "yea thats great conroe its ahead with just few points.. " Whats wrong with you guys. OC intel with equivalent % and THEN look at the results. its the same if i am in school and bring my brother who is working out in the GYM like maniac and ask him to fight my co_student (wich one is a regular nerd like me). Sound fair right? :slapass:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...s/quake800.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/.../quake1600.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...es/fear800.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...s/fear1600.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ges/encode.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...mages/divx.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...images/mp3.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...es/city800.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ges/pf1600.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...s/city1600.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ages/pf800.gif
OK.
Prices in holland are:
Intel e6400 = 211 euro
AMD X2 4400 = 199 euro
AMD X2 5000 = 289 euro
So E6400 on 2,13ghz can easy beat an AMD on stock speeds.
Offcourse i like AMD. I had 3 Amd64 rigs, still have 2, but i always choose the best price/performance hardware.
Thats why i joined the dark side :lsfight:
Thanks for all the feedback guys, glad to give you something interesting to read. :)
Well I decided to give the E6600 a fair run at the same clock speeds as the 4400x2 and here is how it turned out.
Overclocked E6600@2.67Ghz
http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=e66002co1.jpg
Stock E6600@ 2.4GHz
http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?i...00stockvm5.jpg
E6600@3.6GHz vs X2 4400 @2.67GHz futuremark compare.
http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=comparegf9.jpg
As you can see in the final pic, the Game Tests scores go up, but only because of the increase in GPU speeds from 650/870 to 690/885. Hope these screenies help clarify even further. I have nothing to gain from doing rigged benches anyways. I just wish someone else who have both setups could do the same type of comparison.
Well thats something different. Thats fair review.
Thanks ownage for graphs, where did they come from?
The Core 2 Duo is indeed a great processor, and faster...however since i already have a 4400x2 running at 3+ghz it's just not worth it to change over for me....sure I might gain some FPS...but as long as my current system doesn't dip below 60fps than I'm fine.
I have my eye on a new PSU, then the 8800GTX, then some better watercooling stuff, then I'll make the switch to Conroe...or possibly k8l if it's out by then and any good.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._e6400_review/Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
:p:
gurusan: You're right, i also wouldnt dump 4400x2 for conroe, but if you have to buy something new, i think conroe is the best buy at this moment.
With excisting graphix-cards AMD X2 will do fine, but when videocard become more powerfull you will have less bottleneck with Conroe then with X2.
So at this moment X2 and Conroe are on the same level with games, but after a year conroe will be better when you buy g90 or r600rev2 :cool:
Agreed. AMD's new CPU's will show up during next year, but what's the story with Intel? Besides the raised bus speed and possibly 45 nm, are they also going to change the core? And what about the socket?Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/.../quake1600.gif
Lmao.. an E6400 tops an FX62.. but more suprisingly an X6800 which is clocks a whole 900 odd Mhz faster and has an extra 2Meg of cache.. please.
Core 2 Duo is faster clock for clock.. congrats.. but unless your an enthusiastic bencher.. then CPUs from both Companys will do you fine.
People are barfing on about SuperPI - with a conroe clocked at 3.6Ghz vs and Athlon which is clock around a Ghz slower.. it scores around 10seconds less.. if your telling me that its 50% faster than that of the Athlon, you can forget it.
For the most part.. I would say Conroe is the way to go.. but NOT if your into gaming and the E6400 just cant cut it vs the equivilent 4600+.
What's the timings on the memory for your test? DDR has tighter timings than DDR2, which makes it bench better in gaming benchmarks.
AMD's design is GENRALLY better for gaming & multimedia. Intels are GENERALLY better for number crunching (ie SuperPI).
I'm primarilty a gamer, and I do some multimedia stuff as well. If I were to buy today, I'd get a Conroe simply because it gives amazing performance at stock speeds and overclocks like crazy. I'm not buying today, though, I'm going to wait for my tax return. If AMD comes out with something better by then.
I like AMD, as a whole, better than I like Intel. It's a bias; my last two computers have been AMD-based and worked great. (Athlon64 2800+ & T-Bird 1gHZ) But my money will go to the company who can give me the best value.
E6400 has same performance as the best AMD but with overclock the difference is huge:
amd 4400 = 2,2ghz = average overclock 2,7ghz = 23% OC
intel e6400 = 2,13ghz = average overclock 3,4ghz = 60% OC
I also think Intel 775 platform is more future-proof then AM2. There are allready 2 new AMD sockets coming up to replace AM2. But Intel 775 will not be replaced within 2 years and there are allready Quadcores for 775, and Intel will probably the first with mainstream Quadcore.
For now every dualcore is fast enough for games and at high resolutions the FPS will be the same, but in the future Conroe will easy outperforme AM2 at high resolutions (because games become more heavyer), and then all AM2 guys will cry :stick:
I'll do a comparable run with 8800Gtx most likely this by this weekend. So it will be 8800Gtx + E6600 @2.67Ghz Vs 8800GTx + X2 4400 @2.67Ghz.
If we compare stock vs stock isn't kinda like E6300 equals about AMD X2 4200+ or 4400+, E6400 about X2 5000+, E6600 slightly faster than FX62 and E6700 and X6800 of course no rivals. Quite a few tests I've seen shows 20-25% clock for clock advantage for C2D over current AMD cpus. When we compare overclocked results AMD looks of course much more embarrassed, E6600 @ 3.6GHz prolly requires an AMD around 4.3GHz for example. :p
ur kidding right???Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
e6300 almost is a fx62 (if my benchies prove accurate...)
and... u no the only people able to get a e6600 to 3.6 is good overclockers, or people that have lots of money and buy a billion of them :D ?
it is rare to get good ocing chips, but if u do... good for u
and a amd at 4.3 ghz?
i think it would explode lol
what amd chip are you talking about?
i really dont think that a K8l at 4.3ghz will be much worse than a conroe at 3.6 LOL
Interesting results. I don't know how you did it but you managed to make a 2.67GHz 4400+ much faster than the 2.8GHz FX62 that gets spanked by the 2.4GHz E6600 in every other comparative review. Was it the ram timings or something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adapa
Maybe next time you can compare a stock X2-5000+ to a E6400 @3.2GHz for another apples to oranges comparison? OTOH, why not either OC both CPUs to their potential or leave both of them stock for apples to apples?
I use both systems. A 6300@2.8ghz and an Athlon 64 4600@2.6ghz. Just using Windows XP SP2 for surfing and listening to music, virus scans, etc... I can't notice any difference between the two. However, as soon as I encode video with Nero recode, there's a huge difference. The 6300 wins hands down.
I'm not a heavy gamer, but the games I do play run equally smooth on both systems. Of course I only game at 1280x1024 (4x AA, 8x AF).
I do quite a bit of video work, so lately I find myself using the Intel system about 75% of the time. It's just faster at that task and suits my needs quite well.
To each his own I guess :toast:
Well said, exactly same results here. Hands down the E6600 wins at video encoding, actually destroys the 4400x2. But while using the pc to surf the net or basically burn dvd's/cd's I can't tell the difference, also when I game at 1680x1050 / 2xAA/16XAnisotrophic with 7900gt, I can't tell the difference between both setups.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Sorry I'm only talking about gaming performance (not 3Dmark) and was first only comparing stock speeds and I've already seen a couple of reviews that shows what I said does quite a lot sense, about 20-25% clock for clock advantage for Conroe. About that 4.3GHz AMD, I just said it might need that fast current AMD X2/ Opteron DC chip to be equal fast as an E6600 @ 3.6GHz but since world record for AMD dual core chip is far from that it's impossible. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by rpg711
It just requires a Conroe overclock to 3.2GHz or so and NO AMD can compete with it even if it's a handpicked FX62 with LN2 so there's anyways a very huge advantage for Conroe not to meantion E6600 for example which performs a bit better than FX62 at stock and costs like 2.5x less...
For me its really simple, buy Conroe instead of AM2.
AM2 will not last long because of upcoming AM3 and 4x4 socket.
If you look at performance AM2 X2's are nothing compared to Conroe.
Another thing is you never have the warrranty a CPU can clock high, but every Conroe, mostly e6400 and higher can do 3500mhz and 3200mhz for sure.
If you buy AM2 X2 you should be happy with 2600mhz but 3000mhz if you're really lucky.
If you look at the worst clockings you can expect X2 will do 2600mhz and Conroe will do 3200mhz.
I did not see any screen shots or orb links. You may have just forgot the real video clocks, or even the real scores.
LOL.... yeah superPI...... Run 3dmark99 too! hahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by bcracer220
~Mike
Here is a shot of X2 4400+ @ 2.67GHz vs E6600 @3.6GHz. Hope you are happy with the results. :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by lapdog
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/8...paregf9.th.jpg
Well why do you think you don't see much performance difference at 1600x1200 ? Because your 7900GT is the bottleneck. I have been enjoying reading all these posts. I have had the opportunity to build a few rigs this year including my 2. And even with my 7900GTX the Opteron at 2.7Ghz was for me noticably slower in every game I threw at it compared to my Core2duo E6400 non Oc'ed. I play mostly at 1280x1024 because my monitors can't handle more lol.
Benchmarks like the 3dmarks have been used a lot to compare new Gfx cards and CPU's but the I have been playing online fps for ages ( getting too old for that crap ) and the speed my core2 gives even when not overclocked is surely faster then the performance of my Opteron165 at 9 x300 ( with a DDR333 divider 1T 3-3-2-8 ram timings). Games feel smoother and more responsive.
I'm kindda curious what AMD can come up with next , the quadfather seems hilarious expensive for gamers, jeez and again a new socket.In genaral more than 2 core per CPU are no good for gamers (yet) Also the new 65nm tests give no real speed increase over the current lineup. AMD seems to go Intel swap ya socket each 6 months now direction. I have loved all my AMD rigs even from my DX2 80mhz 486 lol. But they need to react fast to give something back to the gamers and overclockers.
But like mentioned before if you have to build a new rig from scratch turn to the dark side ( which was previously AMD) is intel Core2. AMD is topping out on Mghz and need a complete new build. Intel still got heaps of headroom. Only thing that I can think of is that Intel enthousiast motherboards are too expensive (marketing bastards) some over 250 euros and more.
But to sum it all up no matter what brand you choose they will deliver stunning performance if backed up by enough of ram and a good Gfx card. We gamers are spoiled, nuff said
and AMD and Intel user
seems the memory is not fair too,cl3 ddr533 compare to cl5 ddr2-800?and also please try 8800gts or gtx see hows the result.7900gt doesnt require e6600 power
had 3 AMD setup's i switched from Intel to AMD since i past the magical 1Ghz barrier with AMD Duron (Morgan) , i used AMD cpu's since that time, now i switched from my E6 Venice @ 2.8Ghz to E6400 @ 3.4Ghz and i SEE a HUGE difference , i am NOT talking about Super Pi, i'm talking about my games : TES IV:Oblivion , Gothic 3, ANY new games , hell even the old ones run better.
My point IS : if you aren't attached to one company then you are in a win win situation" Why ? because you always get what is the "best :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:" for the "least buck" . Basically i don't care if it's Intel or AMD , all i care is that the hardware i pay for is the best choice on the market.
p.s. sorry but English is not my native language ;]