AMD vs. INTEL

[chineseguyjl]

I am currently thinking about buying a new laptop. one of the issues i've come upon is the processor. and since i'm not currently up to date with this, i need to know which is better.

Intel just recently launched the Intel Core 2 Duo/Extreme which gives 40% better than the last CPU.

AMD's leading CPU is the AMD Athlon X2/FX which has a better system bus speed than Intel.

i'm wondering how can i compute the processing speed with the FSB so i can compare the two for better performance. amd or intel? and why.

[orangeman]

For gaming, the Intel 2 Core Duos are the fastest right now. FX trails behind by a bit. Average everyday work, I think the Intel Core Duos will do fine. This is not the Core 2, but a older model. Still good though.

I'm not sure on FBS, but I remember that AMD always had the higher speeds. But Intel did a lot of virtual cores or something. That's how they are faster, but run way hotter.

But here's the speeds for FSB:
Intel Core: 133/166 MHz
Intel Core 2: 166/200/266 MHz
Athlon 64/FX/Opteron: 600/800/1000 MHz

*The Intel Cores transit 4 times a cycle, while AMD does 2. So that explains a diff. in speeds

Since the Core 2 Duos came out, AMD has been losing some ground. They'll need to come up with something for the desktop, laptop and business. New porcessors not be availabe this year, but next year there will be something to compete with the Core 2 Duos. So maybe Q1/Q2 of 2007 or whatever quarter AMD/Intel releases new products. I said Intel because they might do a upgrade or unleash quad-core, like AMD proposed.

[chineseguyjl]

ok but how can i use that to compare. what i mean is like how can i put the numbers on a scale so i can rank them. like a intel core 2 duo 1.8Ghz with the 200 FSB, with the athlon 64 FX 1.4.Ghz with the 600FSB. is it just a matter of multiplying the two numbers together or is there more to it, like say the cycle thing.

[navlem]

just get intel core 2 duo, even though the numbers may be small, performance wise it is still better den the older processors with high numbers

aka

Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz is actually faster den Pentium 4 3.4GHz and yet consume less energy, so you have a better gaming and longer usage time :P

[Cybore]

From what I heard and read the core 2 duo is much better than the current leading amd mobile cpu. Amd dual core is slightly better than a regular core duo (which offers no 64 bit support compared to the core 2 duo).

[navlem]

From what I heard and read the core 2 duo is much better than the current leading amd mobile cpu. Amd dual core is slightly better than a regular core duo (which offers no 64 bit support compared to the core 2 duo).

realisticly speaking, dual cores offer no performance imrovement to today's computers..

Dual core processors are only best optimized by using multithreaded programs, which is very few

Almost all programs in the industry now is single threaded, which does not make use of the dual core technology...

so the only good thing about dual core is you can use 2 programs at once without lagging, but no performance improvement at all...

Core 2 Duo performs 40% better den the previously best intel product Pentium D, and using 40% less resources, aka less electricity consumption, which also means less heat generated..

Intel Core 2 Duo ultimately speaking is a seriously good investment.

[Cybore]

realisticly speaking, dual cores offer no performance imrovement to today's computers..
Dual core processors are only best optimized by using multithreaded programs, which is very few
Almost all programs in the industry now is single threaded, which does not make use of the dual core technology...
so the only good thing about dual core is you can use 2 programs at once without lagging, but no performance improvement at all...
Core 2 Duo performs 40% better den the previously best intel product Pentium D, and using 40% less resources, aka less electricity consumption, which also means less heat generated..
Intel Core 2 Duo ultimately speaking is a seriously good investment.
For many people, such as myself, a dual core processor is quite useful since it allows the computer to run multiple programs at once without using all of its resources. You could be listening to music, while rendering a model and playing a game and notice less lag. I do agree though, that not much programs as of now take advantage of the newer technology. Maybe once windows vista is released we will start seeing more 64 bit applications and such.

[orangeman]

Personally, i think that unless you want to play games at the max specs, or do work that relys on heavy cpu usage, then a dual core is not much use. Single cores serve their purpose, but are slowly moving up to duals, quads, etc.

On Core 2 Duos:
It's just new technology. Since it was released in the summer, nothing has come out to outmatch its power. Runs cooler than the old stovetop Intels. AMD's top of the line FX processor was beat, so they're working to figure out some plan.

Take on AMD:
AMD has nice, cheap solutions. Their older 939-socket dual cores are only around $200US. Good way to build a budget system, and I heard the Dual-core Turion X2 is somewhat comparable to Core 2 Duos, but not as good.

There's dual and quad-cores coming soon, but no one will utilize the potential yet. Best thing in the near future is probably the transition to 64-bit OS/games/software and incorporation of multiple cores.

[AZNiNjARaVeR]

If its for a laptop, then concider the power consumption also.

The new Core 2 duo processors by intel, take less power then the leading AMD dual core processors.
They Core 2 duo also has powerfull dual core processing, so dont be tricked by the upfront clock speed. There are also multipliers behind that clock speed that you might not be aware of.

Heres a good refrence site you can take a look at when comparing the two...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/definatley take a look at that site... it goes from the simple to the complex diferences.