Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



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

[1-20 | 21-23]

1. 
No comments to add except this: AMD is DEAD!!! That's the hard truth. The Phenom procs. sucks even more than 64 X2, so if they don't cut the price at half, at least, they will go bankrupt or somethin'...
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 04:58:37 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
You aint too bright is ya. So I will....talk .....real.....slow for.....you.....O.....K.....

If AMD goes down we will all be in touble and you will see Intell CPU prices go through the roof. Plus you will be stuck with the Core architecture for the next 100 years.

O BTW AMD aint going nowhere..........dude...............
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 12:03:58 PM]
Reply
 
We will only be"stuck"with core architecture until Q4 of this year when Nehalem architecture
is released.I don't want to see AMD disappear but I'm not going to spend my $ on an inferior
product either.I also don't remember AMD cutting us any slack pricewise when their chips
were the best-an FX used to cost $1000+ not so long ago.Brand loyalty is bullshit-I will buy
whatever is the best bang for my buck.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 02:40:04 PM]
Reply
 
So who do we thank for these low prices? Both Intell and AMD as I remember were cutting no one slack. Even netburst Intell chips were way over priced and people still purchased them. I agree best bang for the buck but the whole amd sucks I hope they go out of business is kinda childish. Plus a lot of AMD cpu's are still going strong. Look at the charts. If you have a high end AMD chip there is no need to even upgrade at this point just drop in a better GPU. In regards to the Intell chips, why would you ever buy the high end Intell chips when you can just over clock the cheap ones.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 02:52:48 PM]
Reply

2. 
Please correct page 2 - the C2D E4xxx series does NOT have VT.

Also the street prices for the 8400 is quite a bit higher than the MRSP (most places sell it for around $220 USD).

And the 8200 is almost a paper launch with availability looking to be in April.

Finally my personal choices in each price range would be the E8400, X2 5200+ (65w 2x1MB L2 core) and the E2160 (but only if OCed).
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 05:21:14 PM]
Reply

3. 
BTW very nice article! And I'm not surprised to see something like this at Xbitlabs ;)

The price points and performance near the low-end are all quite close so it other factors become quite important such as temps, if OCing, MB pricing, etc.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 05:50:59 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Agreed--great article. The results are definitely of practical use, too.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 12:05:04 AM]
Reply

4. 
To no include overclocking in this day and age is a disgrace - i really like this site too!

To compare the 3.18ghz E8500 to 3.2ghz amd cpu that is clocked to max is right out of the amd play book!

Try comparing a E8500 at 4ghz or 4.5ghz then rewrite this. Sorry guys you do good stuff but no overclocking kills the article.

Note sure if your guys heard this, but HP and Dell now overclock computers! Its main stream and part of configuring a good system. Fix the article please!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 06:28:40 PM]
Reply

5. 
Shut up Dragonsprayer. Your comments clearly show you have been caught in the marketing hype of overclocking. Overclocking can only do so little and that is why their benchmarks prove the numbers don't mean anything more than token. Now companies see gullible fools like you that they begin introducing OC versions that increase performance by 1% yet charge 50 dollars more than the stock!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 07:36:44 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
wow a complete..... well raising fsb does nothing? what about memory bandwidth? yes i am well known and have plenty of amd enemies - your true green amd colors show!

as we all know if the best amd cpu and the best intel cpu where properly tuned (overclocking too noobies) the intel lead would be proportional to the overclock or about 25% higher.

now that i see some fire on this site i will spend more then 1 min typing my opinion. Again. xbit should have overclocked the chips too - i love this site. I am really disappointed in the fact that you did not overclock and show the real potential of the 8000 series chips.

Warpedsystems is shipping 4.25ghz air cooled E8400 systems for less then $2000, go head and try that with the amd cpu!

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 09:18:53 PM]
Reply

6. 
Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles and Ten thousand thundering typhoons. Shut up BestInTheNest. OC is one of the most important deciding factors when it comes to purchasing new hardware, specially the CPU(for enthusiasts). Overclocking is made real simple, turn up the fsb and get your q6600 working at 3.0GHz no problems and us gullible fools get the performance of a $1000 chip for $270. OC had been present in almost all the previous xbitlabs reviews, would've been nice if we had it in this one.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 08:50:14 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
thank you - I like to add I own warpedsystems, I build a pc a week myself custom. WSZ only sell's overclocked systems, we have since 2003 and we back up every system with a 3 year cpu warranty! Ask our customers - zero failures since 2003!

Back to the debate as "best" says a 1% gain? Ya try 25% plsu! We all know that there is huge difference in responsiveness for nothing there is not cost to oc the system. Why do HP and Dell only oc their flagship systems?

Unlike Dell and Hp who only overclock their $7000 flagships we oc every system. We do it first and we do it better they anyone.

Good luck!

ps: xbit please redo this excellent article with oc! Yes, i am critical but i still gave it a 10!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/30/08 09:26:08 PM]
Reply

7. 
My E8400 test system is running 4.25ghz and its super fast! The cpu runs about the same as an E6420/E6600 clocked to 3.4ghz.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 01:06:12 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Kudos! Very thorough and interesting article.
I was started to get disappointed in Xbits lately because of their very late video card reviews, but their handling in regard to the CPUs as of late has been very impressive indeed.
And no, contraty to what "Dragonslayer" (how old are you, 10?) says, not including overclocking results does not "kill" the article. Most buyers do not overclock and I think most are much more interested in aspects such as power consumption heat and price/performance.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 02:49:25 AM]
Reply

8. 
I would be interested in knowing if for AMD vrs Intel processors the use of 64 bit,over 32 bit poses any advantage for AMD.

It would seem that AMD would have an advantage since its processors utilize higher specs on its L1 caches.

Just curious.If the numbers would change at all using the same charts and tests.Just loading the Vista 64,or XP 64. With them.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 04:03:59 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I think 64 bit is generally over-looked as for many people there are too many issues with XP and Vista 64 bit for mainstream usage to be a sensible option. It would be interesting to see the results but as there are so few 64 bit applications that I wonder what they’d test!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 01:32:02 PM]
Reply
 
There is an older article on this site comparing 64bit performance of an A64 FX-62 vs C2E X6800: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit.html
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 02:22:32 PM]
Reply

9. 
"This way, competitors from AMD will be less preferable for quiet performance systems, at least according to common sense."

I'm not sure about that last time I checked AMD CPUs where much cooler.
Why do you guys think Intel doesn’t release 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 4.0Ghz CPU out of the box it they OC that high? AMD has 3.2Ghz CPUs manufactured at antic 90nm!!!
Maybe thermals is the answer, or the stupid lack of competition is still the common excuse?
I didn’t saw AMD halting the release of faster Atlhlons64/X2 just because the Pentium4/D sucked.

Also AMD systems have much better IGP for its platforms. Last time I checked Intel IGP still suck at all tasks except linux.
Remember all those facts when you see read the article.

PS: Where the E6xxx go? Seems like Intel no longer sells those.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 04:34:01 AM]
Reply

10. 
Great article. reminds me of the one you did right after the April 2007 price cuts, at that point Intel and AMD were neck-and-neck in price/performance ratio. now Intel has turned on the Afterburner and blown away the competition.

no reason to buy AMD now...except the HD3870.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 06:54:01 AM]
Reply

11. 
in a previous test you (xbitlabs) showed that the new intel wolfdale cpus consume about 3 watts in idle. but the total system consumes in this test here 171 watts. the 8800GTX consumes according to xbitlabs 70 watts. (70+3)/0.7(bad psu efficiency)=74W.

Where does the rest (97 watts) go?

I would love to see the breakdown(memory, NB, hdd, vrm) of the power consumption in an future article. But i think it will be too hard to measure, even for you guys.


the mentioned previous test: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-wolfdale_11.html#sect0
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 07:03:25 AM]
Reply

12. 
My E8400, I only boosted to 3.3GHz and is very SMOOTH in the games I play! Totally worth the upgrade.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 10:38:01 AM]
Reply

13. 
Why didn't you include the Phenom in this lineup? It would have been interesting to see.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 07:39:02 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The article name is "Contemporary Dual-Core Processors Shootout" READ THE F@#$ing title man. Its for Duals only, learn to read please.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 07:52:58 PM]
Reply

14. 
where is e6850~6300 ?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/08 07:50:13 PM]
Reply

15. 
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 01:19:14 AM]
Reply

16. 
AMD all the way!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 05:00:01 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Dumb moron
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 03:58:48 PM]
Reply
 
Not at all!

AMD all the way!!
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/05/08 12:57:56 PM]
Reply

17. 
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.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 06:50:12 AM]
Reply

18. 
I gave this article a poor rating due to a big factual flaw.

Check out retail prices on newegg or any other big vendor and compare to the table Xbitlabs uses in this article.

The prices of the AMD processors are listed about 4-15% over the retail level while the Intel processors are listed 8-19% under the retail prices!!!

This is a gross factual misrepresentation unworthy of this site, which i have generaly found to be trustworthy.

Let's take for instance prices on newegg vs. the listed prices in the article:

Pentium E2160: 79$ vs. 64$ = +23,4%
Pentium E2180: 85$ vs. 74$ = +14,9%
Pentium E2200: 94$ vs. 84$ = +11,9%
C2D E4500: 123$ vs. 113$ = + 8,8%
C2D E4600: 144$ vs. 133$ = + 8,3%
C2D E8400: 230$ vs. 183$ = +25,7%

Avrage: 13.5% more expensive than Xbitlabs reference prices (exluding E8400 due to possible overpricing)

X2 4200+: 64$ vs. 68$ = -6,3%
X2 4400+: 70$ vs. 78$ = -11,4%
X2 4800+: 85$ vs. 89$ = -4,7%
X2 5000+: 90$ vs. 104$ = -15,6%
X2 5200+: 110$ vs. 125$ = -13,6%
X2 5600+: 140$ vs. 146$ = -4,3%
X2 6000+: 160$ vs. 167$ = -4,4%
X2 6400+: 170$ vs. 178$ = -4,7%

Average: 8,1% cheaper that Xbitlabs reference prices

The bottomline is that now we have a relative price/performance parity between Intel and AMD in the low-end segment. Of course AMD platforms are relatilvely cheaper than Intel platforms due to simpler design (i.e. no memory controller on the north-bridge), the Intel processors today have much better overclocking headroom.

I have never seen such unbalance before on Xbitlabs, and this worries me.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 10:50:16 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Wow, amazing that a CPU based on a widened & pumped-up mobile CPU based on a widened & pumped-up Pentium III made by a small team based in the desert of Israel was able to finally catch up to AMD after 7+ years of insisting that high-clockspeed, low IPC, long pipelined Pentium 4 Netbust(ed) marchitecture was the "future of CPUs". Where are all those fanbois on Ace's Hardware saying that the long pipelined P4 was just the "start", and that future CPUs from Intel would have 20-30+ long pipeline stages running very high clockspeeds and thus requiring insane amounts of power & cooling just to run those combined toaster/vacuum cleaners. LOL.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 12:25:46 PM]
Reply
 
F_ck off you dumb retarded imbecile
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 04:01:01 PM]
Reply
 
LOL. Defensive Intel fankids aren't even familiar with the history of the Core marchitecture. Go read up a little about Intel Banias & the demise of the P4 before you post again. j00==0wnz0red
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/02/08 09:58:04 AM]
Reply
 
"official company price-lists"

You may have missed that part of the articvle...
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 01:37:45 PM]
Reply

19. 
and for those morons screaming inaccurate price, read this:
"These are the today’s best buys, if you can find them at the price close to Intel’s official one (unfortunately, it is hardly possible until the market gets saturated with 45nm solutions). "
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/08 01:50:24 PM]
Reply

20. 
Hope that there will come such a review for the new Quads. (specially the new Intel Q9x50 's)
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/02/08 06:22:53 AM]
Reply

[1-20 | 21-23]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment