Dual-core desktop duel: AMD vs. Intel


Recommended Posts

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
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/407461-dual-core-desktop-duel-amd-vs-intel/
Share on other sites

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!

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:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The sweet release of death has never looked more appealing.
    • Meh, just another dongle-haven downgrade compared to my Surface Pro 7+. Whenever I decide to upgrade in the next decade or so, it certainly won't be another microslop Surface with this enshitification trend they've been having after the Surface Pro 7+. Hopefully a future generation of the Framework 12 will be a real upgrade...
    • This could exactly be how our Sun ends but it's not as simple by Sayan Sen Image by Drew Rae via Pexels An international team led by Université de Montréal (University of Montreal) PhD student Érika Le Bourdais has found that the ancient white dwarf star LSPM J0207+3331 is still pulling in planetary debris, even though it has been cooling for about three billion years. White dwarfs are dense, Earth-sized stellar remnants left behind when Sun-like stars exhaust their nuclear fuel and shed their outer layers. The star, located 145 light-years away in the constellation Triangulum, is the oldest and coldest white dwarf known to have a surrounding disk of dust. The star was first spotted in 2019 by a citizen scientist through the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 project. Its cool temperature immediately suggested that it was very old, since white dwarfs gradually lose heat over time. Using the W. M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii, astronomers later confirmed that the star shows infrared signals consistent with dust rings formed by asteroids breaking apart under its strong gravity. Such infrared excesses occur when a star emits more infrared light than expected, often because warm dust surrounding it absorbs and re-radiates energy. “This discovery challenges our understanding of planetary system evolution,” said Le Bourdais. “The fact that we still see planetary debris being accreted three billion years after the star became a white dwarf suggests that asteroids, comets, and even planets can remain in orbit around these stars for a very long time.” Spectroscopic analysis—a technique that studies light to identify the chemical elements present in an object—revealed thirteen heavy elements in the star’s atmosphere: sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and strontium. Normally, heavy elements sink quickly in hydrogen-rich white dwarfs, making them hard to detect. “We expected to see only a few elements, but we found dozens!” explained Le Bourdais. The research paper adds more detail. The absence of carbon features suggests the debris came from a carbon-volatile-depleted source. The abundance pattern shows slight deficits of magnesium and silicon compared to iron but otherwise resembles Earth-like material. This points to a differentiated rocky body—one whose materials have separated into distinct layers such as a metallic core and rocky mantle—with a metallic core fraction higher than Earth’s. In other words, the star is accreting the remains of a large rocky object, similar in structure to Earth or the asteroid Vesta. “White dwarfs offer one of the only ways we can directly measure the composition of exoplanets,” said Patrick Dufour, co-author and professor at Université de Montréal. “When planetary debris come too close, they are torn apart by the star’s gravity and end up polluting its atmosphere, leaving a detailed chemical fingerprint of its composition.” The team also detected weak Ca II H & K line core emission, making this only the second known isolated polluted white dwarf to show this feature. These are specific spectral signatures produced by ionised calcium and can indicate unusual physical activity in a star’s upper atmosphere. The finding suggests that extra physical processes may be happening in or above the star’s upper atmosphere. The study stresses the importance of including heavy elements in model atmosphere calculations, since leaving them out can distort the inferred structure and lead to inaccurate stellar parameters. Earlier work suggested the star’s infrared excess came from two dust rings. The new analysis shows that a single silicate dust disk—a ring composed largely of rock-forming minerals rich in silicon and oxygen—can explain the observed signal at 11.6 μm, simplifying the picture of the system’s structure. The question of how debris ended up falling into the star so late remains open. One idea is that giant planets in the system slowly destabilised smaller bodies over billions of years. Another possibility is that a passing star disturbed the orbits of debris. “Future observations with the James Webb Space Telescope or archival data found in the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission could help distinguish between a planetary rearrangement and the gravitational effect of a close stellar encounter,” said John Debes, co-author and researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Dufour noted that hydrogen-rich white dwarfs are the most common type, and the coolest among them are the oldest stars in the galaxy. “We didn't have the habit of looking for signs of accretion in them. This unique case motivates us to expand our search to more of these stars.” The findings show that even after billions of years, planetary systems can remain active and complex. Substantial accretion events—the gradual accumulation of surrounding material onto a celestial object—can still occur long after a star’s death, offering a rare window into the composition and fate of distant worlds. Source: University of Montreal, IOPScience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Doesn't DDG mainly use Bing?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      jefred earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Apprentice
      JoeyNeo went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Week One Done
      oliviaexpo earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      485
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      228
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      70
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      58
    5. 5
      neufuse
      56
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!