AMD64X2 4400+ @2.67GHz Vs E6600 @2.4GHz (Stock) 3DMark06

(First Off Don't knock the fact that I used a mild overclocked X2 4400 vs a stock E6600. I will update with an E6600@ 3.4GHz soon, I know most or everyone here hopefully overclocks and don't run our setups at stock. But the average consumer is not going to overclock or even think about it;) )
Hi to all. I would like to first start off by saying I am truly a performance junkie/ fan, and I am not loyal to any brand in particular once there is performance to back up the marketing hype I will purchase it. I myself manage my own business, which consists of PC Repairs, Custom Built PCs, sale of PC Components, and a Gaming LAN Café, I find myself at the front line of technology specifically so I can guide my customers in the right direction based on their individual habbits and what they need their pc to do.

I have been in this business full-time for over the past five years. I have built computers with AMD and Intel during this time period. AMD have indeed come a long way for a small company, and over the last 3 years have shown themselves capable of producing very competitive products that have always seemed to edge the performance over Intel especially for users who use their pc’s primarily for gaming purposes and therefore need raw horsepower. Intel cpu’s on the other hand have been superior with their multi tasking, and video encoding capabilities. Thus making a clear cut decision what you use your pc for primarily one would decide whether to go Intel or AMD.

Since the AMD Athlon64 came on the scene they have dominated Intel up until August 2006 with the release of Core2Duo. I myself have recently purchased an E6600 since I was due for an upgrade for quite a while, since I usually upgrade with a new PC setup at least once a year. I thought it only fair to give AMD X2 a try before my complete system overall, so I did a minor upgrade by replacing my single core Opteron 148 which I had running daily @2.86GHz, with an X2 4400 which I of course overclocked to daily run @ 2.67GHz. I immediately noticed the difference in multi-tasking but felt a slight slowdown while gaming, since very very few games use dual core power presently, and my Opteron was superior of course when it came to gaming since it had higher clockspeeds than what I was able to achieve with the X2.

Seeing that I have tried both sides of the camp (Intel & AMD) I can give a reasonably unbiased review and comparison of the Core2Duo and AMD X2. I choose the most recent release of futuremark which is 3DMark 2006 to prove my point. Gaming is by far the most intensive work a PC can do, because it uses all parts of your computer simultaneously.

Gaming uses;
1. Processor
2. Hard Drive
3. Ram
4. Graphics Card
5. Sound Card


Now to the facts;

PC users with overclocked AMD64/ X2 chips, would not feel much of an increase in performance by getting a Core2Duo chip particularly in the area of gaming or regular daily tasks. The Core2Duo chips excel in video encoding/rendering which I can strongly vouch for, especially a highly overclocked one will tear a similarly clocked X2 to shreds in this department.

PC users with Pentium4 / PentiumD processors would notice a huge increase in performance by upgrading to a Core2Duo processor in all aspects of daily computing because of the inferiority of the Pentium 4 processors compared to AMD64 /X2 and Core2Duo overall.

Thus the reason why Intel fans and AMD fans need not to be down each other’s throat about who has the better cpu. If you never used a PC with an AMD64 /X2 cpu then you have no claims or knowledge whatsoever about how much superior the new Core2Duo is over AMD64 especially in gaming/ basic daily computer usage, especially a highly overclocked one. (Unless of course if you are a review junky, but personal experience always beats a review) Intel have took the performance crown back from AMD, and that is why I have an Intel setup presently because I am a fan of performance and not branded and/or loyal to any particular brand of anything.(besides nVidia gfx cards :D ) Being that I have owned both setups I can clearly state that running a stock E6600 @2.4GHz compared to my previous X2 4400 @ 2.67GHz the performance difference in gaming is minute if there is any. To prove this theory we will use 3Dmark06 for comparison, since it measures GPU & CPU performance separately. Using my faithful 7900GT @ 650/870MHz for both setups.

Test setup #1
DFI NF4 SLI DR
AMD64 X2 4400 @2.67GHz
2x1GB PC4000 @534MHz
eVGA 7900GT @ 650/870Mhz forceware 91.47
WD 250GB 16Mb Cache HD
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2...case7eu.th.jpg

Test setup #2.
ASUS P5W64 Pro
E6600@ 2.41GHz
2x1GB SuperTalent PC6400@800MHz
eVGA 7900GT @ 650/870Mhz forceware 91.47
WD 250GB 16Mb Cache HD
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5...casezl9.th.jpg

AMD SETUP RESULTS

Graphic Tests
1. Return to Proxycon 22.388 fps
2. Firefly Forest 24.902 fps

CPU Tests
CPU1 Red Valley 0.647 fps
CPU2 Red Valley 1.039 fps

3Dmark Score 6,562

SM 2.0 Score 2837

SM 3.0 Score 2686

CPU Score 2050

INTEL SETUP RESULTS

Graphic Tests
1. Return to Proxycon 21.358 fps
2. Firefly Forest 23.642 fps

CPU Tests
CPU1 Red Valley 0.662 fps
CPU2 Red Valley 1.047 fps

3Dmark Score 6,340

SM 2.0 Score 2700

SM 3.0 Score 2576

CPU Score 2081


As we can clearly see the performance difference between the 2 different setups is very small in CPU tests which was 31 points. Surprisingly though the performance in 3Dmark Score / GPU tests was in favor of the AMD setup, showing a difference of 222 points increase over the Intel setup. The facts are there, and prove that either the Nforce 4 chipset is superior to the Intel 975 chipset or the chipset drivers still need maturing as far as gaming is concerned , or that the AMD X2 is giving some type of unseen performance boost in the department of gaming, even though it scores less in the cpu tests. At this point it is clear that if gaming is your primary concern then purchasing either a Core2Duo setup or AMD X2 setup will do enough justice for you, and all that matters really is price. On the other hand if doing video encoding and/or 3d renders and you want the absolute best available right now then there is no choice but a Core2Duo setup. I know all the AMD fans out there wish that they could push their X2’s to the speeds at which Conroe’s are getting on air, and close the gap in performance. We’ll just have to sit back and see what new goodies the beautiful year of 2007 will bring for us enthusiasts.

There you have it folks, you be the judge and please do post your thoughts and feedback. Happy gaming and benching.

Cheers
OverclockersTT - TreeZ B)

run superpi

O.K now oc the E6600 to 3.5 and tell me if its fair?

I didn't really expect those results. The only thing that makes the Core 2 Duo's better is the overclockability.

The 4400 X2 can top out at around 2.9 ghz on air while the E6600 can do 3.6ghz on air.

Glad to see AMD isn't dead though.

core2 duo is alot better... Stock vs. oc isnt fair, but good for comparision..

Hmmm, I find that most 4400's top out around 2.6-7

i am not a fan of either side, just a fan of performance :p:

but i do feel some of these reviews are useless, because conroe features newer architecture and features no current gen programs support (i.e. sse4 and some would say the 4mb cache), in my opinion its like testing a ferrari with 87 octane fuel and comparing it to another car designed to run on 87 octane fuel. though the ferrari may appear only to be beating it by a slight margin, when the ferrari is filled up with 100 octane, u will really see the performance gain. so wait for newer programs, and it will become apparent that conroe really whoops the current a64s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcracer220

run superpi

---

You play super pi? Me not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcracer220

run superpi

---

sp results is obvious who wins...

SuperPi is a dumb comparison. Intel has ruled Pi, even since the P4 days.

Verry nicely done, I was also shocked when I found that almost even performance from both procesors, in a previous test..

I also noticed going form my 165 @ 2.9 to a 6300 @ 3.2 was no performance increase at all really, except for super pi and being able to unrar a big file faster..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cTx]Philosophy

I also noticed going form my 165 @ 2.9 to a 6300 @ 3.2 was no performance increase at all really, except for super pi and being able to unrar a big file faster..

---

Thats because processors are that fast, so you will not always notice more performance.
With most things i cant even notice much more performance between my old 2.2ghz newcastle and conroe 3.2ghz.
But after a year you will notice more performance with conroe.
I wouldn't upgrade from opteron 2.9 to conroe, but when i have to buy something new i defenetly would choose for conroe (duh).
Over a year or something games will be much heavyer, and then you will notice conroe performance for sure.
At least you will have less change of cpu bottleneck with upcoming GPU's.

why the difference between opteron @ 2.9 and E6400 ( example ) WILL be bigger in future and now is small?

both are dual cores...i cant understand why c2d will have more advantage :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radamanthys

You play super pi? Me not...

---

you play 3dmark06 cpu test?

didnt think so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickS

SuperPi is a dumb comparison. Intel has ruled Pi, even since the P4 days.

---

Only the HIGHLY OCed Intels ruled at SuperPi. Clock for clock, AMDs completely pwned. My 3700 Sandy at 2.9 did 28s. A P4 had to be well about 4GHz to do that. Conroe has completely changed things...just like we were all saying it would 6 months ago when there was just hype. Hopefully the hype around K8L is also true and we'll see a slight increase over Conroe soon.

6600 core2 duo is very weak cpu compared to AMD64X2 4400 !

First its weaker and much more slower than the Intel HT cpus
Second it doesn't not actually support multitasking as it was advertised,
Try Avid Xpress or ATI ALL IN WONDER TV and do anything beside it, you will see how the core2 duo is a retarted cpu!

You can only see a diffrence with the new Intel core2 duo if you over clock or else be careful

AMD is the best and it will always be

^ Awesome coherent well-thought out post FTW!

this is weird from my testing, for a amd cpu to get close to a 2.93GHz intel core 2 duo you need like 3.2GHz in normal tests (excluded super pi).

you gotta see that your ram on amd is overclocked and pretty high for a 2x1GB kit you dont put the latencies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noob-ftw

I didn't really expect those results. The only thing that makes the Core 2 Duo's better is the overclockability.

---

Exactly, that is the whole point, you get more out of Core 2 than with an X2 or FX. An E6600 can overclock an average of 1000-1400mhz. While the X2 can at most do 500-600mhz if that. The next amd chip needs to break that barrier if they want to truly take back the crown. Conroe is a new breed for intel, you cant think of it as the old P4 that had to overclock high just to compete with amd. You can be even clock for clock but if your competitor is selling a cheaper cpu that overclock more than you; then you lose in my book. I know amd will bounce back but they really need to work on their overclockability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anani

6600 core2 duo is very weak cpu compared to AMD64X2 4400 !

First its weaker and much more slower than the Intel HT cpus
Second it doesn't not actually support multitasking as it was advertised,
Try Avid Xpress or ATI ALL IN WONDER TV and do anything beside it, you will see how the core2 duo is a retarted cpu!

You can only see a diffrence with the new Intel core2 duo if you over clock or else be careful

AMD is the best and it will always be

---

So... did you take your Schizophrenia pills this morning? I guess that's a no. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anani

6600 core2 duo is very weak cpu compared to AMD64X2 4400 !

First its weaker and much more slower than the Intel HT cpus
Second it doesn't not actually support multitasking as it was advertised,
Try Avid Xpress or ATI ALL IN WONDER TV and do anything beside it, you will see how the core2 duo is a retarted cpu!

You can only see a diffrence with the new Intel core2 duo if you over clock or else be careful

AMD is the best and it will always be

---

-conroe e6600 rapes x2 4400 badly.
-it supports multitasking LOL, what are u talking about.

ARE YOU A PAID FANBOY ARE SOMETHING :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hot_fifty

core2 duo is alot better... Stock vs. oc isnt fair, but good for comparision..

---

It's never fair. You're forgetting the fact that that the X2 4400+ cost less than the E6600, even the 5000+ cost less.:fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zardokk

Only the HIGHLY OCed Intels ruled at SuperPi. Clock for clock, AMDs completely pwned. My 3700 Sandy at 2.9 did 28s. A P4 had to be well about 4GHz to do that

---

LOL! Man, it's all relative!
A 2.2 GHz K8 running at 2.9 GHz equals a 31.8 % overclock.
A 3.0 GHz P4 running with a 31.8 % overclock runs at 3955 MHz.
What's your point?:confused: Or did you mean "well above 4 GHz"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

It's never fair. You're forgetting the fact that that the X2 4400+ cost less than the E6600, even the 5000+ cost less.:fact:

---

Its fair, my e6400 is cheaper then the AMD x2 5000 but can easy compare to the x2 5000.

Conroe is clock for clock faster then X2.
Then how could an x2 5000 OC to 3.0Ghz be just as fast as my cheap e6400 mhz at 3.6Ghz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

Conroe is clock for clock faster then X2.

---

I never said anything else, did I?:confused:

I've known for months now that C2 is the faster one, well we all know that.
But the thing is that I'm still not sure what to buy. The only thing I care about is gaming performance, but most of the reviews doesn't really help since they're maxing out the differences by running at 800 x 600 :stick: together with the most expensive graphics cards in CF/SLI.
One of the few exeptions is the review that Xbitlabs did a year ago, showing that the difference between a FX or a (single channel) Sempron or a P4 isn't that big in real world settings, because the graphics card is the bottleneck (nothing new). If someone knows about a similar review of the C2, please give me the link.
I'm looking for more realistic settings together with lower priced cards around $200.
In short:How fast single graphics card do you need to actually see any significal performance differences between X2 and C2D?

BTW, thank you Adapa for your tests, well done!
I've been looking at the C2 for a long time now, but lately I've been thinking that it doesn't matter which one I choose. I also have to say that total cost is important, and I probably won't end up overclocking a lot simply because it only gives me a higher clock speed, and nothing else. I won't break any world records (couldn't care less anyway), and I won't get any better gaming experience with the graphics card I'd use.
I remember when I first reached 3 GHz with my Opteron 146: "3 GHz! Great!!! ...now what?:confused:" It gave me nothing.

These are my personal experiences, and I fully respect people that really enjoys overclocking. I enjoy it too, but only for like 5 minutes. And benchmarking doesn't turn me on either, maybe that's the problem.

3 more FPS won't make my day.

Ok not trying to be an arse here , but ran some game benches to see the real difference not 3dmock experience.
I had a similar setup with yours 4400@2.7 2Gb ddr400 x1900xtx and now the system of my sig..
Gaming experience @1600x1200(which BTW is a GPU LIMITED resolution) is much better, even @stock speeds.Now imagine what this puppy can do @12x10 and 10x7..
3DMock won't tell ya $hit about real gaming world performance. Try your old and your new setup @ games like Oblivion,FEAR,QuakeIV to see what is teh real difference.
I was never going to swap my 4400+ for an E6600 because I considered that the resolution I play at is limiting me(1600x1200). Of course my opinion changed when I saw the benches @various sites. And after the purchase of it I'm 100% happy for teh change..:)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

Thanks ownage for graphs, where did they come from?

---

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._e6400_review/
: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ownage

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

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???
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adapa

There you have it folks, you be the judge and please do post your thoughts and feedback. Happy gaming and benching.

Cheers
OverclockersTT - TreeZ B)

---

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

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 rpg711

ur kidding right???
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

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcracer220

run superpi

---

LOL.... yeah superPI...... Run 3dmark99 too! hahahaha

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapdog

I did not see any screen shots or orb links. You may have just forgot the real video clocks, or even the real scores.

---

Here is a shot of X2 4400+ @ 2.67GHz vs E6600 @3.6GHz. Hope you are happy with the results. :toast:

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 ;]

I'm going to be mean here but, WOW, you noticed an improvement going from a single core to a dual core?

/sarcasm

I always knew that my Opteron 165 @ 2.7GHz with 6GBps+ memory bandwidth wasn't that far behind an E6600 in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiQU!D

I'm going to be mean here but, WOW, you noticed an improvement going from a single core to a dual core?

/sarcasm

I always knew that my Opteron 165 @ 2.7GHz with 6GBps+ memory bandwidth wasn't that far behind an E6600 in games.

---

That obviously depends on the game, rez and vidcard. If you're playing a game that isn't CPU limited at a rez that is limited only by your vidcard, you won't see a difference from a faster CPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

That obviously depends on the game, rez and vidcard.

---

I play FPS, so there's bugger all difference, but even in some of the RTS's the difference isn't going to be that large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

If you're playing a game that isn't CPU limited at a rez that is limited only by your vidcard, you won't see a difference from a faster CPU.

---

What's quickly becoming the norm : 1680 x 1050. Maximum in game settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiQU!D

I play FPS, so there's bugger all difference, but even in some of the RTS's the difference isn't going to be that large.

What's quickly becoming the norm : 1680 x 1050. Maximum in game settings.

---

I see your point but it only reinforces what I said before about gaming performance being dependent upon the game, rez and vidcard. If we use SMP Q4 @1600x1200 with a 8800GTX as an example, your Opty @2.7GHz would be getting less than 100fps vs 157fps for a stock E6600.

Overall there may not be a huge difference between DC and SC CPU systems in many of today's games when using DX9 vidcards but I think we're going to see that gap widen quite a bit in 2007. That being said, until more games are SMP optimized and more work (physics, etc.) is delegated to the second core, there's still some tangible benefit to running other apps and processes on the second core without slowing game play. For example, I no longer have to close or pause F@H when I game and I've even encoded DVDs while gaming.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...1256/13784.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl

your Opty @2.7GHz would be getting less than 100fps

---

According to that image it would be more likely around the 130-140fps area. :confused:

From reading the rest of your post you've confused an Opteron 165 as a single core, it is, in fact a dual core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiQU!D

According to that image it would be more likely around the 130-140fps area. :confused:

From reading the rest of your post you've confused an Opteron 165 as a single core, it is, in fact a dual core.

---

Yeah, my bad. I knew that the 165 was a DC but forgot that's what you had. My short term memory sux. :(

In this Q4 scenario you would get about 140fps compared to 150fps for a 2.4G C2D, 160fps for a 3GHz C2D and <100fps for a 3GHz 1C K8.

well I noticed a feelable difference between my opteron 165@2700mhz and my C2D 6400 even when not overclocked, the core duo system is more responsive in unzipping, loading stuff etc ... and even if I had 130 fps in Quake4 before it still would dip to lower levels when in hard fights ( and that was with a 7900GTX or 7950X2 vidcard) Especially multiplayer levels where each extra fps is appreciated and I know it dropped below 60fps mate, even with a tweaked config.
These numbers by websites only time a short period of the game ( a few minutes max) they don't play it hours a day and their timedemos are sometimes hilarious, it gives a good indication but you have to play it for yaself to see what gives.

We are all spoiled with huge fps numbers and it might seem weird but each improvement in my rig ( gfx card , cpu , ram) is noticeable to me. I need to adapt again to it to enjoy my multiplayer experience. Also when going from single ( AMD4000 to my opty) was an improvement in windows etc ... games didn't benefit as much becasue they lacked support in those days

No matter what cpu you buy you will get good performance for your money, but please stop claiming the AMD is almost as fast as the Intel Core2. If you are a hardware purist and want the fastest rig out there Intel is at the moment the way to go and AMD is this time in the catchup position. Even it might seem money wasted each fps is welcome for any game and it's worth it if you play online games. Nuff said...

I hope we can all agree (and not solely by virtue of opinion) that, clock-for-clock, C2Ds hold consistent advantages over K8s across various applications (single- or multi-threaded) – while expending less energy.

SuperPi:
However, I also hope that it is understood that SuperPi is not a good indicator of the disparity between the two chipmakers’ architectures. Previously noted on this thread was the need to “run SuperPi” to see how the chips compared. While I believe SuperPi is a good reference stressor tool, it is not necessarily an accurate way to compare overall performance between architectures.

Qualification:
Let’s use the E6300 (1.86 GHz) as an example. On average, it crunches through a 1M Pi digit calculation in 29.9 seconds. An FX-62 (2.8 GHz) finishes the same calculation at approximately 30.0 seconds. To put this further into perspective, even K8s overclocked to 3.3 GHz find it difficult to dip below 25-second 1M calculations – while stock E6600s are known to hit the 21-second mark. Moreover, stock X6800s readily strike 17 seconds or fewer. Does this mean a stock X6800 is nearly twice as fast as a stock FX-62? That’s a humorous proposition, at best.

Facts:
In Cinebench 9.5 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmark the FX-62 renders 3D faster than an E6600 and is almost on par with an E6700.As a matter of fact, using WinRAR's highest level of compression, the FX-62 bests the E6700. Additionally, Encoding WMV (9.0) from MPEG, 3D Studio Max 7 rendering, and Maya 7 HD rendering the Fx-62s performance is comparable to (and, in the instance of Maya 7, better than) the E6600's (see bottom link).

Reference: http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...6AF9EBCFE93C5A

(Note: Not bad for an architecture whose basic design was released in September of 2003, with only revisions in the areas of power consumption, maturing of manufacturing processes, sizes of cache, speed of HT link, memory channeling/bandwidth, and number of cores.)

Investment:
For someone living in the PC dark ages – or without one – or if money is not an issue, building a C2D system may be the wisest choice for value and future-proofing or even simply for benchmark bragging rights. Though, for someone who picked up an Opteron 165/170 a few months back (for less than $200) achieving overclocks of 2.9 to 3.2 GHz, purchasing a new board, CPU, and (in some cases) DDR2 memory is not a viable option.

Some might say, “Well, what about gaming?” Simply put, AMD’ers have their GPUs (or multiple GPUs) of choice, CPUs overclocked, and have their frame rates locked into vertical refresh rate synchronicity (as do many gamers on either side of the Intel/AMD isle who value the absence of tearing, while giving their GPUs a slight heat-producing break). Hence, they cannot necessarily benefit from the significant frame-rate increases that C2Ds oftentimes provide – just like Pentium owners could not necessarily benefit from an upgrade to Athlons in years past.

Conclusion:
Just like Intel faithfuls clung on to their Pentium 4s, Ds, and EEs, while K8 reigned over the gaming and benchmarking domains, you can expect AMD followers to do the same and await K8L – while C2D presently leads the way. If you’re in need of a new PC (and are devoid of an Intel/AMD bias), I see no reason why one would not build around the C2D architecture – it’s fast, available, overclockable, and well priced. However, if someone is currently at the top of the AMD food chain and cruising at respectable speeds of 2.6 to 3.0 GHz (or faster), I wouldn’t understand the absolute need to jump on the C2D express lane (although, I know I must account for those who simply have the monetary means – or who can sacrifice enough – to simply have the latest and greatest). Nonetheless, it’s another exciting era in the world of computing.

P.S.
Try leaving the SuperPi comparisons alone. As discussed, they don’t truly amount to anything substantive.

Quote:

---

Simply put, AMD’ers have their GPUs (or multiple GPUs) of choice, CPUs overclocked, and have their frame rates locked into vertical refresh rate synchronicity (as do many gamers on either side of the Intel/AMD isle who value the absence of tearing, while giving their GPUs a slight heat-producing break). Hence, they cannot necessarily benefit from the significant frame-rate increases that C2Ds oftentimes provide – just like Pentium owners could not necessarily benefit from an upgrade to Athlons in years past.

---

I never use vsync. Under 100/125 fps (depends on game) = no thanks for multiplayer.

Also you're comparing a 600 dollar FX-62 to a 300 dollar 6600. Then on top of that a good FX62 will run about 3-3.2 where as a good 6600 will run 3.6-3.8.

Quote:

---

I never use vsync. Under 100/125 fps (depends on game) = no thanks for multiplayer.

---

Great point, many non-vsync'ers (and especially those playing AMD-CPU bottlenecking games) will benefit supremely from C2Ds.

Those FPS “100/125” + HQ CRT = gaming visual bliss or smooth visuals and playability with an LCD. Thankfully, LCD PC monitors will finally see 100Hz refresh rates later this year - though, it's already being showcased by Samsung's LE4073BD, a TV (http://www.behardware.com/articles/6...afterglow.html)

Quote:

---

Also you're comparing a 600 dollar FX-62 to a 300 dollar 6600.

---

The FX-62 was not used to compare value, but rather as a reference (you can substitute the FX-62 with any of the various sub-$200 dual-core K8s that easily overclock to 2.8 GHz, with the right steppings) to demonstrate how C2D SuperPi advantages over K8 do not scale similarly in other or real-world scenarios. Also, I mentioned the Opteron 165 and 170, priced at $154 and $189 respectively (for which highly overclockable steppings can even more easily be found, thanks to the height of the process’s maturity) to demonstrate how/why current owners of those CPUs running at speeds of 2.6 to 3.0 GHz (or faster) may not need or desire to upgrade to C2D just yet or at all (from the perspective of value, considering the costs incurred from switching platforms).

Quote:

---

Then on top of that a good FX62 will run about 3-3.2 where as a good 6600 will run 3.6-3.8.

---

That’s the absolute reality of it folks! And interestingly, a great K8 overclock of 3 GHz only places it between a stock E6600 and E6700 in some applications and below them in many games. Add even mild C2D overclocking, and the gap widens – very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afireinside

Under 100/125 fps (depends on game) = no thanks for multiplayer.

---

That's either costing you a lot in hardware or graphics quality... :slobber:

I'm perfectly happy with my Opteron 165 and my v-sync on. :P

I'd choose 6300 over fx62 and beat it :)

I've tested around 10 chips so far (including 6300) and the worst clocker was 3.4GHz 24/7 stable on air.

No Amd chip can compete with that at the moment for top results. Just hope they have something better in the future.

Don't get me wrong, amd did make good chips before, I had many amd cpus myself but not now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiQU!D

That's either costing you a lot in hardware or graphics quality... :slobber:

I'm perfectly happy with my Opteron 165 and my v-sync on. :P

---

Cost me 500 for an 8800GTS when they came out :p:

I run 1280*1024 and pull a constant 125 in cod2 DX7 (DX9 still sucks in that game) and a constant 100 in CS source with DX9 max detail 16qaa 16af. All powered by an AMD at 2.9ghz :) Single player games I just max everything and live with crap fps, no need to have an fps advantage in single player. I only upgraded to conroe again because the 8800s can really eat up CPU power and I want to take full advantage of my card.

If you're still on a DX9 card and don't feel a need for super fast encoding I really don't see a need to upgrade to conroe unless you're coming from something ancient like socket a or 754.