Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
21.
Excellent Article!!
Thank You!
Thank You!
[Posted by: Haim 
| Date: 01/31/08 07:20:44 AM]
| Date: 01/31/08 07:20:44 AM]
Discussion
Discussion on Article:
Contemporary Dual-Core Processors Shootout
Started by: TAViX | Date 01/30/08 04:58:37 PM
Comments: 116 | Last Comment: 07/11/08 03:33:24 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads
22.
get an e8200
it overclocks just as well as the e8400/e8500 , the lower multiplier is not a real problem if you have a decent mobo.....e8200 just the best bang for your buck.
it overclocks just as well as the e8400/e8500 , the lower multiplier is not a real problem if you have a decent mobo.....e8200 just the best bang for your buck.
[Posted by: SK | Date: 01/31/08 08:07:57 AM]
| Date: 01/31/08 08:07:57 AM]24.
Very good review indeed.
Makes sometimes AMD looking good, but the truth is even E2140 is better then any AMD X2.
Overclocking is good and right thing to do :)
It's so easy overclock 1600 @ 3000 MHz with the BOX cooler at around default Vcore... and AMD can't match this performance! It's cheaper then X2, and consumes less power, right?
Makes sometimes AMD looking good, but the truth is even E2140 is better then any AMD X2.
Overclocking is good and right thing to do :)
It's so easy overclock 1600 @ 3000 MHz with the BOX cooler at around default Vcore... and AMD can't match this performance! It's cheaper then X2, and consumes less power, right?
[Posted by: xumko | Date: 01/31/08 09:13:07 AM]
| Date: 01/31/08 09:13:07 AM]25.
My E8400, I only boosted to 3.3GHz and is very SMOOTH in the games I play! Totally worth the upgrade.
[Posted by: SorryAMD | Date: 01/31/08 10:38:01 AM]
| Date: 01/31/08 10:38:01 AM]
26.
I would really like some x264 benchmarks too.
x264 codec is free and very powerful and I think more people use the x264 to encode videos rather than the Mainconcept H264 Encoder.
Is there a reason why the x264 isn't being used as a benchmark ?
x264 codec is free and very powerful and I think more people use the x264 to encode videos rather than the Mainconcept H264 Encoder.
Is there a reason why the x264 isn't being used as a benchmark ?
[Posted by: ks1ps1 | Date: 01/31/08 02:22:27 PM]
| Date: 01/31/08 02:22:27 PM]27.
So for sub $100, AMD is still the way to go... 4200+ it is!
[Posted by: 31415 | Date: 01/31/08 02:51:40 PM]
| Date: 01/31/08 02:51:40 PM]28.
MY COMPUTER RUNS AT 356 FSB AND IS OVER 3.2 GIG FOR A 250 $ UPGRADE, I THINK MY OLD OVERCLOCKED POS AMD 4200 EATS S..T NOW. AND TMOA
[Posted by: 2160 MSI MB AND 2GIG GSKILL 250 DOLLARS | Date: 01/31/08 04:08:19 PM]
| Date: 01/31/08 04:08:19 PM]29.
Why didn't you include the Phenom in this lineup? It would have been interesting to see.
[Posted by: Joseph | Date: 01/31/08 07:39:02 PM]
| Date: 01/31/08 07:39:02 PM]+ expand thread (1 answer)
31.
I certainly appreciate the fact that this article avoided overclocking. For myself, and probably for most people who buy cpus, overclocking is not part of the picture. The cpu is installed and run at its rated speed. I dabbled a little in overclocking, but found that the performance increases were not readily visible, and the increase in cpu temperature and fan noise was simply not worth it.
On the other hand, the cost/performance comparison aspect of this article is either extremely sloppy or partisan, perhaps a bit of both. A quick visit to Newegg disclosed that all the Intel cpus are considerably more expensive and all the AMD cpus are considerably less expensive than portrayed here. A good example is the Intel E4500, claimed by Xbit to cost $113. On Newegg the E4500 is $125. Per Xbit, the 5400+ has identical performance to the E4500. The 5400+ is $99 on Newegg.
You draw the conclusions: $99AMD vs. $125 Intel for the same exact performance. The direct polar opposite of Xbit's conclusions. Clearly Xbit is blowing copious amounts of smoke out of the anterior portion of their pants. Just make sure it doesn't get in your eyes!
Moreover, since Xbit claims the article is a strict price/performance comparison, they ought to include the stock Phenom 9500, $190 on Newegg. And don't give me any whining about the article focusing only on dualcores. Surely the E8000 series should be able to take the pathetic, TLB challenged Phenom 2.2GHz.
It's obvious why Xbit doesn't because according to their own results, even the lowest Phenom stomps the $230 E8400 in rendering, encoding, and heavily multithreaded software. Granted the high clockspeeds of the Wolfdales make them preferable for gaming, but four slow cores will obliterate two fast cores for a lot of software. And, I value rendering and encoding time savings far more than a few fps in some game.
Xbit's price/performance graph should be entirely redone. The Phenom 9500 find its appropriate place, farther to the right in performance and lower in cost than E8000 series Intels. Or a disclaimer should be added, stating the date the prices were posted, and that the prices are subject to large fluctuations. Otherwise the article smacks of dishonesty.
Vext
On the other hand, the cost/performance comparison aspect of this article is either extremely sloppy or partisan, perhaps a bit of both. A quick visit to Newegg disclosed that all the Intel cpus are considerably more expensive and all the AMD cpus are considerably less expensive than portrayed here. A good example is the Intel E4500, claimed by Xbit to cost $113. On Newegg the E4500 is $125. Per Xbit, the 5400+ has identical performance to the E4500. The 5400+ is $99 on Newegg.
You draw the conclusions: $99AMD vs. $125 Intel for the same exact performance. The direct polar opposite of Xbit's conclusions. Clearly Xbit is blowing copious amounts of smoke out of the anterior portion of their pants. Just make sure it doesn't get in your eyes!
Moreover, since Xbit claims the article is a strict price/performance comparison, they ought to include the stock Phenom 9500, $190 on Newegg. And don't give me any whining about the article focusing only on dualcores. Surely the E8000 series should be able to take the pathetic, TLB challenged Phenom 2.2GHz.
It's obvious why Xbit doesn't because according to their own results, even the lowest Phenom stomps the $230 E8400 in rendering, encoding, and heavily multithreaded software. Granted the high clockspeeds of the Wolfdales make them preferable for gaming, but four slow cores will obliterate two fast cores for a lot of software. And, I value rendering and encoding time savings far more than a few fps in some game.
Xbit's price/performance graph should be entirely redone. The Phenom 9500 find its appropriate place, farther to the right in performance and lower in cost than E8000 series Intels. Or a disclaimer should be added, stating the date the prices were posted, and that the prices are subject to large fluctuations. Otherwise the article smacks of dishonesty.
Vext
[Posted by: Vext | Date: 01/31/08 07:50:43 PM]
| Date: 01/31/08 07:50:43 PM]32.
I did not read all comments, but it should be pointed out that Intel platforms cost is usually higher than that of AMDs, because of mobos prices...and as noted by others, prices used on this article should reflect the reality, not hypothetical prices (never found in reality).
[Posted by: Fredlight | Date: 01/31/08 11:36:54 PM]
| Date: 01/31/08 11:36:54 PM]33.
very² nice article guide, only missed the OC section ...we know everyone do some OC today :)
[Posted by: wedfighter | Date: 02/01/08 01:11:59 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 01:11:59 AM]34.
Some Phenoms are available, albeit a bit hard to get hold of at the moment. It's a bit unfair to contrast AMDs rather old architecture against Intel's newest.
[Posted by: Ian M | Date: 02/01/08 01:19:14 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 01:19:14 AM]35.
I remember that about one year ago, the price of the motherboards was signigicantly higher for a Intel pc than for a AMD pc. Has this changed or is the price comparison performed as if no motherboard was needed in order to present a false overview?
[Posted by: Kwee | Date: 02/01/08 02:19:31 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 02:19:31 AM]36.
Perfect overview of the dual cores although I would also like to se the quad's.
Thanks!
Thanks!
[Posted by: sinan | Date: 02/01/08 04:01:39 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 04:01:39 AM]37.
This article is missing some points I feel, even if its just for comparisons-sake...
1. a E6xxx processor to show improvements that the E8xxx brings
2. Quad Core Q6600 & Phenom 9600 to demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages of over Dual Code
3.AMD Black Edition @ normal & multiplier overclocked to their stable maximum levels
1. a E6xxx processor to show improvements that the E8xxx brings
2. Quad Core Q6600 & Phenom 9600 to demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages of over Dual Code
3.AMD Black Edition @ normal & multiplier overclocked to their stable maximum levels
[Posted by: marneus | Date: 02/01/08 04:12:39 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 04:12:39 AM]38.
AMD all the way!
[Posted by: j00 = tEh 5u9| | Date: 02/01/08 05:00:01 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 05:00:01 AM]40.
Regrettably it is too early to tell how well the Dual Core Phenoms will do.
For the value / price ratio also some words would be jsutified that the majority of AMD mainboards has a few dollars advantage.
Intel surely has teh top, but the mid-range seems to be pretty much a tie.
For the value / price ratio also some words would be jsutified that the majority of AMD mainboards has a few dollars advantage.
Intel surely has teh top, but the mid-range seems to be pretty much a tie.
[Posted by: Joost | Date: 02/01/08 06:50:12 AM]
| Date: 02/01/08 06:50:12 AM]Our Sponsors
