Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Confused about AMD vs INTEL dual core

I

ilnyckyj

macrumors member
Original poster
May 4, 2005
47
0
I've been reading about dual core processors, and i was looking on newegg.

This first is an Intel dual core, it operates at 3 ghz and costs $331:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116238

This second is an AMD dual core, it operates at 1.8 ghz and costs $325:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103588


Does the difference in cache size really make up the difference between the clockspeeds? The Intel's L2 cache is twice the size of the AMD's. They both support 64 bit, and the Intel runs at a lower voltage, but the AMD has 'Hyper Transport support'. What would by the advantage to getting the AMD? Which would you get?
 
but let's say I was doing some video encoding. Wouldn't it get the job done faster with a single core operating at a higher frequency. (won't most applications not take advantage of both cores at the same time?)
 
ilnyckyj said:
but let's say I was doing some video encoding. Wouldn't it get the job done faster with a single core operating at a higher frequency. (won't most applications not take advantage of both cores at the same time?)
Click to expand...
thing is, even then the amd's faster because it's more efficient, and other things. megahertz aren't everything ;)
 
homerjward said:
thing is, even then the amd's faster because it's more efficient, and other things. megahertz aren't everything ;)
Click to expand...

how is it more efficient? why is the intel's L2 cache twice that of the AMD and what effect would that have on it?
 
ilnyckyj said:
how is it more efficient? why is the intel's L2 cache twice that of the AMD and what effect would that have on it?
Click to expand...

just listen to what the guys above are saying! the amd is much more efficient than the pentium d!

the pentium d's are nothing more than two pentium 4 cores stuck together.

if you really wanna go the intel route....then the core duo is the only way to go!
 
ilnyckyj said:
how is it more efficient? why is the intel's L2 cache twice that of the AMD and what effect would that have on it?
Click to expand...
it has a shorter pipeline, better memory latency (due to onboard memory controller), and better design. for a true why you should ask a microprocessor designer--i don't fully know the WHY, only that it is :eek: :p
the cache is twice as much because, well, intel designed it that way. as far as performance, more cache IS an advantage because it allows the processor to store more instructions in ultra-fast memory, much faster even than RAM, but more cache doesn't necessarily make for a bad processor.


o by the way, are you doing heavy, heavy audio work with this machine? AMD's lag behind intel's in audio work for some reason :)


i could find some benchmarks for this stuff if you like, there are many out there showing amd better than intel. i don't really consider myself to be a fanboy, it's just that athlon 64 is much better than netburst (the pentium 4 microarchitecture). if this were laptops, intel's laptop chips outperform amd's.

edit: some benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/10/amd_athlon_fx_60_dual_core_assault/page7.html a lot of processors, but the 930 and the 3800+ are on there.
 
smokeyboi said:
just listen to what the people above are saying! the amd is much more efficient than the pentium d!

the pentium d's are nothing more than two pentium 4 cores stuck together.

if you really wanna go the intel route....then the core duo is the only way to go!
Click to expand...
tbf, so are the x2's, just stuck together in a better way, and better to start with.
 
Also keep in mind that that Opteron will overclock very well. It basically kicks the crap out of the Intel offering, as others have said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back