MrCobra Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 What would the results of a dual-core desktop CPU fight look like? Many people equate Windows PCs with Intel Pentium processors (and soon will likely be doing the same with Macs), but we've seen dual-core CPU AMD systems power ahead of dual-core Intel-based PCs on more than one occasion. To answer the question once and for all, we set ourselves to a no-holds-barred dual-core desktop CPU fistfight. AMD submitted its five dual-core CPUs, and Intel matched with its lineup of four. We built two test beds as nearly identical as we could for the two platforms and ran each chip through a battery of tests. We then ran those results through our price-vs.-performance calculator to find out not only which is the best overall dual-core CPU in terms of raw performance but also which one offers the most bang for your buck. Skip ahead to the official ruling if you want, but the match itself is interesting. Full review: ZDNet AU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+s55 Subscriber¹ Posted December 12, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted December 12, 2005 Already seen several duels and we all know the results i'm afraid ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 ABSOLUTELY OWNED!!!!! I would of liked the Dual-Core Socket 939 Opteron 1x5 series to be benchmarked too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n30w1n Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Who cares? In all honesty, this is thread # 10,000,001 about the same exact thing. "Yay for AMD!"; "Intel sucks!"; and vice versa! I see that this is one of the articles where AMD wins. But so what? That doesn't make it a better company. They still use whiny bitch little tactics like "publically challanging Intel to a face-off" and "taking Intel to court" for a non-existant monopoly to promote their own products. In the end of the day, both companies suck equally... And it is of absolutely no significance who has the 0.3% better benchmarks in 51% of applications. SERIOUSLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_skrilla Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 yep... not really any contest... seen this like for like 10 different "duels"...,.,...it's clear who the winner is.. if you have ever spent any time using the processors it is also very clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiver Veteran Posted December 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted December 12, 2005 very interesting post... i acctually expected intel to put up more of a fight but amd seemed to **** on them... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tOta Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Who cares? In all honesty, this is thread # 10,000,001 about the same exact thing. "Yay for AMD!"; "Intel sucks!"; and vice versa! I see that this is one of the articles where AMD wins. But so what? That doesn't make it a better company. They still use whiny bitch little tactics like "publically challanging Intel to a face-off" and "taking Intel to court" for a non-existant monopoly to promote their own products. In the end of the day, both companies suck equally... And it is of absolutely no significance who has the 0.3% better benchmarks in 51% of applications. SERIOUSLY! So you are a Intel fanboy and what now :angry: I read you last sentence in post so :whistle: Whiny bitch little tactics????? Why are their tactics whiny bitch :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCobra Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 Who cares? In all honesty, this is thread # 10,000,001 about the same exact thing. "Yay for AMD!"; "Intel sucks!"; and vice versa! I see that this is one of the articles where AMD wins. But so what? That doesn't make it a better company. They still use whiny bitch little tactics like "publically challanging Intel to a face-off" and "taking Intel to court" for a non-existant monopoly to promote their own products. In the end of the day, both companies suck equally... And it is of absolutely no significance who has the 0.3% better benchmarks in 51% of applications. SERIOUSLY! If you didn't care then you didn't have to click the link and come to the post. SERIOUSLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n30w1n Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 So you are a Intel fanboy and what now :angry: I read you last sentence in post so :whistle: Whiny bitch little tactics????? Why are their tactics whiny bitch :laugh: It's funny how I said both companies suck the same, but I'm being called an Intel fanboy because I happened to say it on an AMD thread :rolleyes: I'm not arguing for either company, I'm arguing that fanboys of both companies should stop wasting forum space. At the least, post when there is at least a double-digit-percent difference between product A and product B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted December 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted December 12, 2005 Go AMD. I've been an AMD user since the K6-2's and admittedly that was a slightly pants experience thanks to poor floating point performance. I then moved on to a Slot A Athlon, and again, a slightly frustrating experience with a poor VIA chipset. Things quickly improved though and i've never looked back.. I don't even look at Intel stuff when pricing up new systems for me or friends - AMD all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tOta Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Ok i agree that fanboys war should stop :yes: But i did comment that you are a fanboy when i saw what you wrote: "hey still use whiny bitch little tactics like "publically challanging Intel to a face-off" and "taking Intel to court" for a non-existant monopoly to promote their own products" I also agree that there isnt big diffrence between perfomance of CPU's For me 3-4 FPS in games are not so important,but price and heat are important :shiftyninja: You must agree with me :) that intel has/had monopol over CPU production just like Microsoft over OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue` Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelly2003 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 I went to a couple of AMD seminars last week, it was pretty interesting to see the workings of their dual core chips compared to Intel's. If AMD are telling the truth about the differences in design then AMD definetly has a leg up with their chips, as information flows between cores and hardware so much quicker and easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n30w1n Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Ok i agree that fanboys war should stop :yes: But i did comment that you are a fanboy when i saw what you wrote: "hey still use whiny bitch little tactics like "publically challanging Intel to a face-off" and "taking Intel to court" for a non-existant monopoly to promote their own products" I also agree that there isnt big diffrence between perfomance of CPU's For me 3-4 FPS in games are not so important,but price and heat are important :shiftyninja: You must agree with me :) that intel has/had monopol over CPU production just like Microsoft over OS. Well frankly I don't think either of them have a monopoly... Even if by monopoly it is meant that their contracts prohibit the buyers from offering alternatives, it's still just an excuse for companies who offer worse products. It's just a standard non-competition clause on a very large scale. Let's face it, these types of contracts would never be signed by anyone if Microsoft or Intel didn't really make the hands down best product at the time they were signed. And when something else comes along, the contracts expire and are not renewed in the same way. You can't blame Intel for having had the whole market when AMD didn't make good CPUs. Now AMD makes good CPUs and their market share is only increasing... Same with Microsoft, Windows is just the best consumer OS out there. And Netscape died because they got lazy, not because IE was included in Windows. Media Player is included too, but people still use Winamp, because it's a better program to most. Same with Linux. Linux isn't ready yet, regardless of how ready it's fans say it is. Right now it's starting to show a bit, namely in electronics that advertise instant boot. Even though Windows MCE is available, Linux can do that perticular thing better, so it's being used there. Now if Linux were to start shining in easy desktop computing, then the manufacturers would find a way to offer it there as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonjeng Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 i certainly know amd will win overall result of price / performance. What i'm really suprised is that intel didnt even win a single test. Even using the ddr2 memory technology wherelse amd using old ddr memory. i usually say to others for video encoding use intel.. Now ,after seeing the result, .. u all noe the rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noveed Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 i dont give a toss about Intel or AMD, but it looks like from these results that intel got slaughtered. well done amd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted December 12, 2005 Global Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2005 LOL, AMD just murdered Intel in that... but winning 8/8, i see some fanboyism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Kompressor Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 anyone know when we will see Dual Core x64 laptops ? especially using centrino technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Woot! Go AMD (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasker Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 if AMD is a kick ass processor I don?t understand why apple don?t choose this one over Intel, maybe is because they will release a new kind of powerhouse processor in 2006? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted December 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted December 12, 2005 Intel will come back in 2006 with their new set of processors. In the meantime, AMD should use their success with their 64-bit chips and build upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slimy Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Because AMD won in every single "showdown" i question whether this is biased or not. Don't get me wrong though, I'm running an amd right now but still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noveed Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 how about some comparison results from xbit labs, im pretty sure they will not be bias...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Really it's down to the person buying the CPU at the end of the day. Like me i've been using INTEL for the past 8years but next new pc i will be using AMD just for gaming :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvbfan Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 if AMD is a kick ass processor I don?t understand why apple don?t choose this one over Intel, maybe is because they will release a new kind of powerhouse processor in 2006? Believe it or not most computer users don't know or care what processor they have in their computers. Just so long as they can get their Email , cruse porn sites and collect spyware / viruses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts